tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 09 11:53:58 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: jItlhIj



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 10:01:05 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
>
>: >From: [email protected]
>: >DIloraQ ghunchu'wI' jevaD jIchID 'ej jItlhIj
>: 
>: *ugh* jIpar.  {*Dloraq*vaD *ghunchu'wI'vaD je jIchID} yIja'.
>: "conjunction"Daq DIp moHaq yIlanQo'.  *Voragh*, vay' ja'pu''a' *Okrand*?
>: 
>: ~mark
>
>*ugh* indeed. AFAIK, noun suffixes can only be used on nouns and pronouns,
>which are a subset of nouns. {je} is called a conjunction by Okrand, not a
>noun. Klingon grammarians probably just class it among the {chuvmey}. (I'll
>have to check TKD when I get home.) I searched the entire corpus, in fact,
>and could find no instance of ANY conjunction taking any suffix at all. It
>was an interesting idea, though.

Well, they can also go on adjectival verbs, which leads me (as convinced by
'Iwvan) to think that type-5 noun suffixes might better be classed (by
non-Klingon grammarians) as postpositions than suffixes.  As such, it might
make sense to put them on conjunctions, since they're then on the noun
phrase, but it's not even close to convincing.  Many languages require the
adposition to be repeated for conjoined nouns, and Okrand probably would
have said if you put them on conjunctions.

MO says that the suffixes go on the NOUNS (so put them there) and the
conjunction follows the nouns it joins (so put it there).  By following
that rule, you get {*Dloraq*vaD *ghunchu'wI'*vaD je}.

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBM5xRPcppGeTJXWZ9AQHnTAMAoQzybtTKMK+L5mLzaoaAlBhawKLfTkN4
OykzjJq6z5yDklCQLok2fKRiYtbBNlNUi0lIVFDivzi9jks2f/bnwzmP0GElShsO
P3Wrsttn7sQ4DCSIB4OiBa9bWbtRdq/s
=S803
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Back to archive top level