tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 12 02:09:44 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SopDaq
- From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: SopDaq
- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:08:10 -0700
- Organization: Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science
- References: <[email protected]>
Kenneth Traft wrote:
> If Qong is a verb and Daq added to it makes it the noun for bed
> then it would be used as a nominalizer.
Even that is not 100% certain. It's just possible that {QongDaq} is
no more derived from {Qong} via {-Daq} than _meat_ is from _eat_ via
a hypothetical prefix _m-_. Granted, that's unlikely, but it can't
be ruled out.
What is likely is that the process is not (or no longer) productive.
No one would deny that _feet_ is formed from _foot_ via umlaut, but
that doesn't make *_beet_ a correct plural form of _boot_.
> Alan Anderson wrote:
> >>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.
Possibly, but that doesn't mean that {nIteb} is analysable. No one
said that all Klingon morphemes are monosyllabic (although most are).
--'Iwvan
--
"reH Sov yInej 'ej Dap yImuS, <dOstI bA mardom-e dAnA nEkO-st,
jagh val qaq law' jup QIp qaq puS" do^sman-e dAnA beh az nAdAn dOst>
(Sheikh Muslihuddin Abu Muhammad Abdullah Saadi Shirazi)
Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria <http://www.math.acad.bg/~iad/>
W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences