tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 11:07:01 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: SopDaq
- From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: SopDaq
- Date: 20 Apr 97 14:05:49 EDT
Message text written by "David Trimboli"
>> This implies that {Qong} is a Noun, which I cannot find glossed anywhere.
>No, it does NOT imply this. It implies, and indeed explicitly states, that
>{QongDaq} is a noun. It does not tell us anything at all, nothing whatsoever,
>about the derivation of {QongDaq}. It is almost certainly not a noun plus
>{-Daq}, because we can also say {QongDaqDaq}.
>> So, I suppose it is a Noun for which we do not have a translation.
>No. {QongDaq} is a noun for which we have a translation. {Qong} is a verb
>for which we have a translation. That's ALL we have. {QongDaq} cannot be
>arbitrarily split by you or me, only Okrand can discover its derivation.
I'm reminded of a passage from "Animal Farm," where one of the ruling class
(pigs) is justifying their sudden use of beds.
"A bed is merely a place to sleep."
"DaqQong 'oH neH QongDaq'e'
Qapla'
qoror