tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 20 11:38:15 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
problems with -wI'
I have remarqued that too often the suffix -wI' (for "doer") is being
treated by our members as a noun suffix. The problem has been already
discussed here on the mailing list at least twice during my membership
time (i.e. since end of March 96) and recently I have dropped twice
on a similar treatment in two more important places than just someone's
personal mail to the mailing-list or his/her personal opinion.
The one of them is David Barrons's Postal course (sponsored by KLI) and the
other is the Sami Laitala's file KLISUFF.ENG which he intends to put on his
web-page (or has even already put it there).
I won't copy the Postal Course page but I shall quote the Sami's fragment
which is quite similar to the table in the Postal Course. I have infromed
both authors about my concern, but as it seems to be some general tendency
I would like to discuss it a bit.
Here's Sami's fragment:
>NOUN SUFFIXES
>
>
> | -------- suffixes -------- |
> WORD + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5
>
> -wI' -'a' -pu' -qoq -wIj -Daq
> -Hom -Du' -Hey -lIj -vo'
> -oy -mey -na' -Daj -mo'
> -maj -vaD
> -raj -'e'
> -chaj
> -vam
> -vetlh
>Noun
>
> -wI' -er, doer (being, thing, gadget, machine, medium);
> one who does
> Note the likeness: attached to a verb -> noun
> (attached to a noun 1 pers. possive suffix)
And dealing with group 9 verb suffixes in both cases (David's and Sami's
as well as e.g. with beHwI"av's mailings) -wI' is OMITTED COMPLETELY
from the discussion of the verb suffixes in the respective sections as
if it were not a verb suffix. But similarly -bogh makes a noun out of a
verb, and our authors don't put -bogh under nouns, and don't omit it
from the verbal suffixes. Lack of consequence? %-{)
The mess is probably caused by the fact that Marc Okrand (reH yInjaj! 'ej reH
najtaHvIS qeylIS ghomjaj!) deals with this suffix more abundantly in the
chapter 3 of nouns (3.2.2.) than in the chapter 4 of verbs (4.2.9) of TKD.
The only thing with the chapter of nouns is that -wI' is being dealt with
in the secion of COMPLEX NOUNS and not SUFFIXES.
Should not all our grammarians and those who would like to write about Klingon
grammar keep that in mind?
Extra note: should we not finally accept that the suffix -oy is in fact
-oy/-'oy (see p.174 TKD)?
macheq noychoH jemtoQ
=========================================================================
lasciate ogni speranza voi qu'entrate
=========================================================================