tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 14 08:37:27 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Compounds . . . again
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Compounds . . . again
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 97 01:30:39 UT
jatlh peHruS:
> 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."
In fact, this is the only sentence in this section. Not much support for you
there.
It then goes on to describe those other parts, which include 3.2.1 Compound
Nouns, 3.2.2 Verb plus {-wI'}, and 3.2.3 Other Complex Nouns. Let's see, your
verb compounds, if they are supported by this argument, would have to fit into
"Other Complex Nouns."
Hmmm . . . this seems to be the section which states, "There are a good many
nouns in Klingon which are two or, less frequently, three syllables long, but
which are not complex nouns of the types listed above. These nouns probably
at one time were formed by combining simple nouns, but all or one of the nouns
forming the complex nouns are no longer in use, so it is not possible (without
extensive etymological research) to know what the individual pieces mean."
And then there's the example.
Where? Where do you see support for verb compounds? All I see are nouns,
nouns, and more nouns. For all we know, words like {vutpa'} consist of {pa'}
and a noun {vut} which is no longer used in Klingon. Or, it could be a
contraction of something else, like {vutmeH pa'}. You have posilutely,
abso-smurfly NO way to tell! Even Okrand's hypothetical derivation of
multi-syllabic nouns considers only noun compounds.
The rules tell us that we can compound nouns with nouns. They say a big fat
zero about compounding verbs with anything. Klingon is a simulation of a
natural language. It's not truly natural, but that's how we must treat it.
And to do this, we cannot make up rules. We must apply the rules we DO know
as best we know how.
> Especially note the last word in this quotation, "part." This
> does not state that the parts must be nouns.
No, this doesn't. The next three sections do.
> 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.
"Seem to be." There's that big, hairy {-law'} in there.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97451.2