tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 12 01:09:52 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: SopDaq
- From: "Kenneth Traft" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: SopDaq
- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 97 07:51:16 UT
----------
From: [email protected] on behalf of Alan Anderson
Sent: Friday, April 11, 1997 9:07 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: RE: SopDaq
>>>{Qong} "sleep (v)"
I wrote:
> Or maybe we can assume that -Daq can be a nominalizer?
Alan Anderson wrote:
>>>Huh? {-Daq} is a *noun* suffix; it goes on *nouns*. Nouns don't need
>>>to be nominalized!
I'll say:
If Qong is a verb and Daq added to it makes it the noun for bed then it would
be used as a nominalizer.
However, I know it's a bit of a stretch, but given the information we have and
equating the two and Okrand "NOT SAYING" one way or the other best to wait I
guess.
Alan Anderson wrote:
>>That's a mighty big "if" you've got there. It's entirely possible that
>>{QongDaq} has a more subtle origin than simply a noun-noun >>compound.
>>Consider {qa'meH} -- it's emphatically *not* "spirit-bridge", nor does
>>{nIteb} necessarily have anything to do with "they fill you."
Then again there are probably many words we don't know yet and qa' and nI or
teb have other meaning that go together. Why When there two syllable words
that "don't" seem to make sense together doesn't mean that words put together
that make sense should be "understood" in that context. QongDaq makes sense
as a sleeping place. The words Qong and Daq are known and the consturction of
"bed" from that is a logical derivative and warrents serious consideration.
Especially when we see other word combinations that would seem to support it.
It will be interesting to see the new book. It'll probably make us all seem
fools.