tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 20:18:17 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: family suffixes
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: family suffixes
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 23:18:21 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromMarian Schwartz on Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:50:48 -0700 (PDT))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
>
> qoror here. I thought of something. I won't describe it too much, as
>you ought to figure it out. In this list, the first two are canonical and the
>last is a guess.
>
> loDnal husband
> be'nal wife
> nuv[ghot]nal spouse
Hmm. Can't say about this one. At least you didn't say "*nal", which
would have been more intuitive. BUT Okrand (in TKW, if I recall correctly)
tells us that -nal is a bound morpheme, which doesn't occur on its own.
NOTE: the previous sentence was straight out of my fuzzy memory: someone
please double-check.
> I was planning to use "-nI'" too, but I realized it can't be quantified
>into something, because it's used for "brother," "sister," "grandfather," and
>"grandmother." If it was only used in two of those sets, we could have
>"sibling" or "grandparent," but -- oh, well.
Then you're already a step ahead of Glen Proechel, who has already
sanctioned "*puqnI'" for "grandchild", etc. and has faced the exact same
criticism (is "?puqnI'" a grandchild or a niece/nephew?). I don't think we
can infer much, or anything, about the use of -nI' as a suffix from the
usage we've seen: it is not obviously consistent.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBM1rcecppGeTJXWZ9AQEnFQL8CUdt7brw5wfsmxstLEVcvM/u2COQhs2U
SP0rdFA3zAzKIhqo1VsSvcU608R+AfHR1np4Z42AAhA2K7IQ/FrFswier7Ul4VH3
uwlEv22vpVJHgbaLG4GMpeYA+gLIQNA9
=H3+T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----