tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 27 17:55:14 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: how about lutbompu'
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: how about lutbompu'
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 17:53:30 -0800
At 15:12 27/11/96 -0800, jatlh SuStel:
}November 27, 1996 4:13 PM, jatlh 'orqut:
}
}> Can you get
}> away with pluralizing the first half of a compund noun?
}
}Well, Okrand does add other *suffixes* to the end of the first noun in the
}compound: {tIjwI'ghom}.-
The first element in the noun-noun compound tIjwI'ghom is tIj - board (v)
and -wI' (one who does), not some noun *tIj owned by me. Therefore neither
noun in the compound has a suffix. This is the example from section 3.2.2,
which explicitly permits this use. The tiny amount of information we have
on compound nouns, and Okrand's use, suggests to me that we should not
construct our own, suffix-bearing or bare, and that section 3.2.1 is an
etymological note (like 3.2.3) and not an instruction.
---
Qov (Robyn Stewart) [email protected] tlhIngan Hol ghojwI'