tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 11 12:14:53 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Vocabulary? WAS: Re: KLBC mu'ghomHomwIj
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Vocabulary? WAS: Re: KLBC mu'ghomHomwIj
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:30:42 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Neal Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, December 11, 1997 9:10 AM
Subject: Vocabulary? WAS: Re: KLBC mu'ghomHomwIj
>"Vocabulary" - what does it really mean? If it means "set of words" then
>what we really want for "all of the vocabulary" is something like
><mu'tay'Daq Hoch mu'>.
This is the dreaded Krankor Trick, and I certainly don't like it. The more
I see it, the more I don't believe in it.
Krankor's trick in a HolQeD not too long ago was to use a Type 5 suffixed
noun to modify another noun. The only canon evidence that this can happen
is uncertain at best ({ghe''orDaq luSpet 'oH DaqlIj'e'}). TKD prohibits
against nouns with Type 5 suffixes from being the first noun of the
noun-noun construction. Furthermore, every example that Krankor says
requires his trick can in fact be written without his trick.
Nouns with Type 5 suffixes (not including {'e'}) modify SENTENCES, not other
nouns.
mu'tay' Hoch mu'
every word of the vocabulary
>And can <-Daq> refer to a non-physical place, such as
>a vocabulary list? (Adding <tetlh> in there might help that.)
Uncertain. Generally, I would stick with strictly physical meanings, unless
you're certain it would work in some other context and be correct.
{tetlhDaq} *could* refer to a list which has actually been written down, in
which case it works. If it's just a list that exists in your head (if the
noun covers that), {-Daq} may not work.
SuStel
Stardate 97945.9