tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 11 15:11:55 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: SopDaq
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: SopDaq
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 97 22:06:42 UT
tlhob peHruS:
> How far may we go in constructing new words from the existing roots?
Every time you ask this question, the answer is the same: make noun-noun
compounds as long as the result is very obvious and likely to be a lexicalized
word. Do NOT make verb compounds, or seperate word elements.
> Recently I have seen {paqghom} for "library" with no negative comments
> following.
That's because it's a noun compound, and was fairly obvious in the
accompanying context.
> We know that {QongDaq} is canon for "bed."
That's right. We know that because *Okrand* told us.
> May I use {SopDaq}
> for "dining table"?
No.
> How about {ghItlhDaq} for "escritoire"?
I suppose that's stuffy-talk for "desk." No. {ghItlh} *is* a noun, meaning
"manuscript," but what's a "manuscript-place"? Doesn't seem to likely to
mean. Besides, that's not what you mean. You're talking about the *verb*
{ghItlh} and that's just not allowed.
I'll still be here in three months when you ask this question again.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97278.4