tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 13 11:31:12 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: Re: leSSov/Foresight

ghItlh peHruS:

<< The only way to make compound nouns described in TKD is by putting two
 (or more) nouns together.  Some of the words in the dictionary look as
 if they were made by combining a noun with a verb, or even two verbs,
 but we can neither do that ourselves or be sure that's how they were
 made in the first place. >>
>
>According to TKD 3.2.1 clearly states the above regarding compound nouns.  I
for one am adamantly adhering to my own belief that other forms of complex
(not compound) nouns do exist.  For evidence that this is allowed, see TKD
3.2, which states:  "Complex nouns, on the other hand, are made of more than
one part."  Especially note the last word in this quotation, "part."  This
does not state that the parts must be nouns.  Although we as KLI members have
resolved to make up no new words from the base words we already have except
by combining nouns to form compound nouns, we see many instances wherein Marc
Okrand has used what seems to be verbs combined with nouns, other verbs, etc.
to form new nouns.
>
>This is a challenge I have picked up.  I continue to fight for its cause.
>
>peHruS

I will not argue with the TKD. But as I understand it, the taboo is simply 
that we can't go making complex nouns willy-nilly. (If this writage is a 
difficultness to understand, that is un-surprise-like!) We don't know enough 
about Klingon morphology to figure out what's going on all the time in 
'by-the-rules' Klingon, so we cannot expect to be successful at making new 
words in ways other than the most grammatically clear. 

When we examine pp. 19-20 of TKD, we see that 3.2. Complex nouns (where your 
quoted "more than one part" appears) is the heading of its section. 3.2.1. 
deals with N-N construction, 3.2.2. with V+-wI', and 3.2.3. with ?N+?N.... 
This states quite clearly that these three types of constructions are IT. 
Nowhere is it explicitly stated that verbs cannot be combined into a compound 
noun construction (and examples such as HeDon lend some support to that 
argument), but it is clear that this could only happen in the third case. We 
have no knowledge of proto-Klingon - we cannot make assumptions and expect to 
be correct.

Noun-Noun constructions are common and consistent, and as I understand, the 
powers that be here feel (as I do) that there is sufficient evidence to allow 
us to CONSERVATIVELY create such compound nouns. We can use Qel'Ip and be 
understood, even though I think I just coined it. But these opportunities are 
very rare, and one could even argue that Qel 'Ip is the only correct way to 
say "doctor's oath"; the compound is, I admit, not entirely necessary. Verb 
=wI' constructions are equally clear and common.  Since there is no basis for 
making constructions of the third variety, we are limited to these two types 
of constructions.
 
The bottom line is that this list is a forum for The Emperor's Klingon. We 
cannot be too liberal in our constructions, lest we find ourselves at best 
being not understood at all, and at worst completely misunderstood. New words 
will come our way, and we must be patient. Until then our duty is to keep to 
the canon and not do MO's job for him!

(Speaking of new words: I have toyed with, and have decided upon, the Klingon 
name Qermaq. It originally came from playing with my last name, but later I 
discovered that maq is the verb "proclaim". I expect we all will be surprised 
to learn what Qer means....)

Qermaq

Back to archive top level