tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 15 08:43:19 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SopDaq
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
>
>tlhob peHruS:
>>How far may we go in constructing new words from the existing roots?
You seem to ask this question quite often, with some regularity. As we've
said before, the sense I've seen among many Klingonists is that Okrand
sanctions compounding of *nouns* (p.30), but nowhere sanctions compounding
*verbs* nor nouns with verbs. Examples of this do not a rule make; after
all, English has "overlie" and "understand" (note that "understand" means
nothing whatsoever like what you would expect by the compounding rule you
would derive from "overlie" and "overlay"), but not "besidesit."
Is there anything unclear about this answer?
>Not nearly as far as you seem to be suggesting. We know we can put
>nouns together productively; we don't have any way to combine verbs
>or to make noun-verb compounds.
Right, like I said.
>> Recently I have seen {paqghom} for "library" with no negative comments
>>following.
>
>Without context, it just means something like "book-collection" to me.
>As it was used recently, it was a reasonable thing to say. But it does
>*not* translate clearly as "library" in isolation.
I'm not sure it's that bad even without context: paqghom (a *noun-noun*
compound, mind you), is a "book-group", a group of books, by the rules set
forth by Okrand. It works pretty well for any collection of books, a
"library" in the abstract sense (not necessarily a building with people
that say "Shh!" all the time and a card you stamp).
>> We know that {QongDaq} is canon for "bed." May I use {SopDaq}
>>for "dining table"?
>
>No way! {Sop} is a verb, and can't be used with a noun to make a
>compound word. Perhaps {SojDaq} would work if the meaning were made
>clear otherwise, but by itself it's not "dining table" at all. It's
>a lot closer to the concept of "food court" in my mind.
I've used "SojDaq" occasionally (and SopDaq too, actually, though I think I
shouldn't have). SojDaq isn't bad for dining table, IMO, though I can
certainly see room for argument. "*SopDaq*", though, is a verb-noun
compound. See above about those.
>>How about {ghItlhDaq} for "escritoire"?
>
>I'd tend to read "manuscript-location" more as a place for *storing*
>documents, not for *creating* them.
Depends on the context. It could work.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBM1OiDMppGeTJXWZ9AQHW3AL/fAQfxU9aP9oEnxentRYpGmw5HPYcZNbO
pYQjNYcsUdSrFXLRUL96S/Tr5PFAB8yPS0w73X8VOJKEqaRcHDPZ46amul4N394e
oAUJaBCTQO7s+cmZkJfJEBzy0oSNLRf/
=4xox
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----