tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 17 10:47:50 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SopDaq
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: SopDaq
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 13:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromMarian Schwartz on Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
>
>ghItlh ~mark latlhpu' je
>>>> >> 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_.
>>> >
>>> >True, but _boot_ and _foot_ don't have the same sound in
>>> >the middle.
>>>
>>> But "boot" and "tooth" do, and yet one is teeth and the other boots.
>>
>>True, however, words which are pluralized generally base the plural on the
>>ending, not the middle of the word. The word "boot" does not necessarily
>>rhyme with "tooth", the only other usable noun that springs to mind that
>>does rhyme with "boot" is "root", and its plural is "roots", which of
>>course, rhymes with "boots". So, Mark, I'm not sure what line you were
>>leading us to...
>
>Sheez. Then consider "booth" and "tooth", which DO rhyme, but "booth"
>pluralizes as "booths" and "tooth" as "teeth." Happy now?<
>
>I'd like to offer an explanation for all of this rigamorole: English nouns are
>very irregular (though not as much as German!), and no general rule can really
>be assigned.
Which was exactly the point. English has irregularities, and it is not
wise or safe to assume from a few examples that all other similar things
behave just the same. Klingon does seem to be more regular than English,
but we've already seen irregularity in language; can we really assume that
we can generalize from one or a few examples with no explanation along with
them? "Tooth"/"booth" shows you can't do so in English, as an example of
why it is unwise to do this with a language. Including Klingon.
>By the way, I hear the "foot-feet," "take-took" formation, with the middle vowel
>changing, was very common in Proto-Indo-European, the base of Slavic, Romance,
>Germanic, Indian languages, Irani languages, and who knows what else.
Yes, it was. Who knows what processes were at work during the history of
tlhIngan Hol, giving rise to forms by methods no longer productive?
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBM1ZiQsppGeTJXWZ9AQHnlAL/QfoT4Aj4xOV3eDld4sZuL7jTs5gohv8G
gOFbjjKgOcYsRk7Zo5/b0p7mcX9eFdroiOGsEb3ZURWbwlfJojh1Aldp2ewy5vY6
3J7xJ4vEHIHBSQwU4JKTERqEhE3wP3Rx
=nIPg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----