tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 15 06:19:09 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: compound words
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: KLBC: compound words
- Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 09:18:37 -0400 (EDT)
jatlh SuStel (14/06/97) <Compounds...again> :
> The rules tell us that we can compound nouns with nouns. They say a big
fat
> zero about compounding verbs with anything.
I do agree, although a noun-verb compound would not shock me. Since many
words e.g. {HoS} can be both a verb and a noun, my opinion (as a non-Klingon)
is that they are a single word, which corresponds to an English noun when
they
take noun suffixes, and to a verb when they take verb suffixes. But MO says
that
Klingon grammarians do distinguish nouns and verbs, so...
However, {HoSghaj} (to be strong) is obviously built from {HoS} (strength)
and
{ghaj} (to possess). SuStel says it is *not* to be considered a compound, but
a
verb on its own right. This implies we *cannot* derive words by adding {-gaj}
to
a noun, unless MO approves (I hope it doesn't prevent us from submitting such
words for approval).
Now question 1 : it seems that in such construction {-ghaj} is used as some
kind
of suffix to derive a verb from a noun (a bit like {-wI'}). Other suffixes
(e.g. {-ngan})
seem to be used in a consistent way. Is this an undocumented feature of
tlhingan Hol? May I use {-ngan} to derive {*France*ngan}?
Question 2 : TKD mentions {lo'} (to use), {lo'laH} (to be valuable),
{lo'laHbe'} (to be
worthless). The construction of the last two from the first is obvious,
although
{lo'laH} should mean "to be able to use" and means "to be able to be used"...
Since these words have separate entries in TKD, {lo'laHbe'} is a verb on its
own
and so we can say {lo'laHbe'be' 'oH} (it is not worthless) although it sounds
somewhat artificial. Same with {Qoch} and {Qochbe'}, hence {jIQochbe'be'}
(I don't agree) - OK, {jIQoch} is better. The point is, are such verbs given
separate
entries in TKD for the purpose of illustration only, or are they really
independent
words, which would allow for apparent double negations?
Qapla' -- HdW