tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 04 13:06:13 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Joke word - HoSchem
ja' peHruS:
>mu' {leSSov} wIpojlaHchu''a'
jIQochbe', 'ach napchu' ghu'.
<leSSov> wIchenqu'moH je.
DIpmey bIH <leS>'e' <Sov>'e' je.
cha' DIp DItay'moHlaHbej.
>mu' {Hu'Sov} vIchupta'DI' bepbe' vay'
chaq pupbe' qech, 'ach <leSSov> Sovlu'mo', ghaytan <Hu'Sov> yajlu'.
pIm ponglIj 'ay'mey. not nIteb narghpu'. chaq nIteb narghlaHbe'.
It's not so much a question of whether we can "clearly analyze" the parts
of a complex noun, but whether we can use known parts and known grammar
to *put it together*. {leSSov} is somewhat understandable as a compound
even before looking up the combined word; the word {Hu'Sov} is just as
understandable. Given that {leSSov} is known to mean "foresight", it's
likely that {Hu'Sov} would be understandable as "hindsight" even without
being an already lexicalized term.
{?peH} and {?ghep} and {?ruS} are different. We don't know what they
mean by themselves, or even if they *can* mean anything standing alone.
We have the example of {*nal} as a "bound morpheme", meaning it is never
found by itself, though it seems to have a consistent meaning whenever
it is used in a compound.
-- ghunchu'wI'