tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 25 10:57:30 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {QongDaq} as a compound noun?
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {QongDaq} as a compound noun?
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 97 17:55:48 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Alan Anderson wrote:
> ja' peHruS:
> >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.
>
> When and where did he explain this? The only "archaic noun" sort of
> explanation I'm aware of is in reference to {*nal},
[...]
> 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'}
[...]
> 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
[...]
> 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?
http://www.kli.org/cgi-bin/mfs/1997/Jun97/0678.html
In fact, Okrand doesn't say that {Qong} used to be a noun, he says that {Qong}
*might* have been a noun, but he also points out the very same possiblities
that you do.
peHruS, please read your sources carefully before posting.
--
SuStel
qoH vuvbe' SuStel
Stardate 97735.1