tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 25 06:53:06 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
{QongDaq} as a compound noun? (was Re: KLBC: -ghach)
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: {QongDaq} as a compound noun? (was Re: KLBC: -ghach)
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 97 08:35:02 EST
ja' peHruS:
>...I wish to point out that while we do not have a gloss for a
>noun counterpart for {Qong} we do have strong evidence that {Qong} is also a
>noun. MO has pointed out that {QongDaq}, "bed", is a compound noun which
>uses an archaic noun {Qong} which is now lost and not used in modern speech.
nuqjatlh?
When and where did he explain this? The only "archaic noun" sort of
explanation I'm aware of is in reference to {*nal}, which appears to
have a definite nounlike meaning but is never found by itself, at
least not in "modern Klingon".
I know that Marc Okrand has *speculated* that there might have been
nouns that have been lost except within compounds; TKD points to the
words {'ejDo'} and {'ejyo'} as clues that {'ej} could be an ancient
word for "star" (though {Do'} here remains mysterious). But in the
specific case of {QongDaq}, there are other likely possibilities for
its origin. It could be a corrupted {QongmeH Daq} or {QongwI' Daq}.
It could even be a contraction of an ancient formula for "place in
which he sleeps." We know corruptions occur and are lexicalized; the
noun {qa'meH} definitely has its origin in a pair of verb suffixes.
If Okrand said {Qong} used to be a noun but isn't anymore, that's ok,
but I don't remember reading it. Where should I look?
-- ghunchu'wI'