tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 18 17:49:38 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: compound words
- From: Bill Willmerdinger <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: compound words
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:09:58 -0400
- Organization: IKV Crystal Dagger, Klingon Assault Group Rochester NY
- References: <[email protected]>
[email protected] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-06-15 11:58:58 EDT, SuStel writes:
>
>> 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. >>
>
> While I, too, use {ja'chuq} without any Object as if it were a Verb plus a
> Type 1 suffix, I am interested in your line of reasoning while claiming
> {HoSghaj} as a standalone Verb and not making the same claim regarding
> {ja'chuq}.
The two are not exactly parallel cases, IMHO. {ja'chuq} can be analyzed
as verb+suffix, and makes sense *as* the verb {ja'} plus the type 1
suffix {-chuq}. {HoSghaj}, however, is *apparently* either verb+verb
*or* noun+verb. Since we have no rules at all for compunding verbs, I
feel it necessary to assume that all non-analyzable "complex" verbs must
be treated as one word.
This is my own opinion, but I'll stand by it unless someone can point to
canon saying otherwise.
--
Qob la' (tlh.w.D. quttaj ra'wI')
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD qhojwI'
[email protected]
http://www.frontiernet.net/~qob/