tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 16 23:55:08 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: compound words
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: compound words
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 02:54:36 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 97-06-15 09:35:23 EDT, HdW writes:
<< 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}?
>>
While I find I can agree with SuStel that {HoSghaj} is a complete verb in and
of itself, I cannot agree with the concept that perhaps {ghaj} and/or {ngan}
may be considered noun suffixes. In the case of {ngan} in particular, I find
a gloss in TKD of {ngan} as a stand-alone noun, giving us compound nouns such
as {DenIbngan} and *France*ngan.
Even though I clearly understand where the KLI majority is coming from after
they have read TKD Sec 3.2 ff., I see lots of evidence that MO has not so
strictly interpreted 3.2.3 as KLI has. He seems to be more in line with the
way Chinese works; "parts [of speech]" may be combined to form complex words.
I have listed examples before: {botjan}, {QongDaq}, {chuS'ugh}, etc. I
impatiently await clarification from MO, meanwhile thinking that not all
tlhIngan Hol words are derived only from current nouns or nouns which we no
longer use as nouns.
Finally, this is a battle I have entered. I will not be disappointed if you
all follow the majority hypotheses. rInDI' may'vam, che'jaj charghwI'pu'
peHruS