tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 30 18:14:56 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: family suffixes



ja' peHruS:
><< Hmmm...  does that mean we might be able to construct compound words with
>that?
> (As canonical as other compound words of ours.) Such as... let me think...
> "naltay" for "marriage"? >>
>
>Beware.  SuStel, BG, is condemning making new words from what we have.

I think the admonition is against pulling words *apart* to make new
ones, not against putting existing ones together.  In this case, we
don't have an existing *{nal} to work with, and in fact we are told
explicitly that it does *not* exist as a separate word.  That still
doesn't mean *we* can make compounds out of it, just that compounds
already seem to exist using the {nal} morpheme.

-- ghunchu'wI'




Back to archive top level