tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 29 20:51:01 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: An interesting Scrabble idea
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: An interesting Scrabble idea
- Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:53:37 -0500
SuStel writes:
>I just had an interesting thought. If while playing Klingon Scrabble as we
>did at the qep'a' wejDIch, someone found a verb which they could make, and
>also noticed that they could add, say, {-Daq} to it, should that be allowed?
Quj'aHwIj'e' wIlo'chugh, qechvam vIchaw'Qo'.
If we were using *my* Scrabble set, I wouldn't permit it. :-)
>...{qIjDaq} [is] a perfectly legal word when it's preceeded by a
>noun, so would it be considered a legal word in its own right?
It's *only* a valid word in combination with a preceding noun. I don't
consider it to have an independent meaning. I might have to think this
through a bit, though; {-bogh} has a similar problem in that a headless
relative clause doesn't make sense either.
>As long as
>there are no other verb suffixes besides {-qu'}, it really is a word!
By the way, we've seen adjectival use of verbs with {-be'} also.
-- ghunchu'wI'