tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 15 08:41:34 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: compound words

[email protected] on behalf of [email protected] wrote:

> > 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'}).

It's not the idea of verb compounds that makes me uneasy.  It's the fact that 
you will be tempted to make assumptions like this, which very will may be 
completely untrue.  It *looks* like {ghaj} is some sort of suffix element, but 
consider for a moment: When talking about being powerful, back when the 
Klingon language was younger, suppose that the appropriate phrase was {HoS 
ghaj} "he has strength."  {HoS ghaj tlhIngan}.  {HoS ghaj SoSlI'}.  {HoS ghaj 
wo'}.  After a while, the forces of language evolution may have turned this 
oft-repeated phrase into a single word, {HoSghaj}.  It's pronounced in exactly 
the same way, and means exactly the same thing.  It's been fused.  However, 
other phrases did NOT evolve along the same lines, because they were'nt used 
as much.  The phrase {pIch ghaj} "be at fault" was not used so frequently, and 
so did not become {pIchghaj}.  You don't see THAT in the dictionary.  The 
langauge did not evolve that way.

If my above speculation, which is as legitimate as saying that {ghaj} is some 
sort of suffix element, is correct, then trying to add {ghaj} to other words 
would make you sound very foolish to the ears of Klingons.  And since both of 
our stories fit the facts, who's to say which is correct?  Not I.  I'm not 
saying it is either of these.  I'm admitting that I DON'T KNOW.  And until I 
DO know, I'm not going to try to say possibly ridiculously incorrect things.

> 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}?

{ngan} is a noun found in the dictionary.  {*France*ngan} is fine, because 
it's a typical noun-noun compound.

> 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?

Generally, I believe that they are used for illustration, but this applies 
only to those words which we could construct for ourselves independently.  You 
wouldn't say {Qochbe'be'}, you'd say {Qoch}.  {lo'laH} is a bit of a mystery, 
and I try not to use it too much.

(I also think that {ja'chuq} is just {ja'} + {-chuq}, and that it never takes 
an object.  The way it's used, though, makes it indistinguishable from a 
separate verb, and so trying to distinguish them is almost a moot point.  This 
happens to be another thing which fits in my verbs of saying theory.)

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97455.6

Back to archive top level