tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 15 19:21:40 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qep'a' pa' qoch vInej
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: qep'a' pa' qoch vInej
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 22:14:35 EST
In a message dated 2/12/1999 11:58:53 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< wej ben, cha' ben, wa' ben je >>
This reply has nothing to do with Alan's request for a {qoch}. I see that
ghunchu'wI' does indeed write the number and the noun separately. Well, I
don't want to pick on ghunchu'wI' here. MO is WRONG. MO clearly lists
{wa'Hu'} and {wa'leS} as two-syllable single words on p. 113 of TKD. MO
should have separated these glosses into a number and a NOUN.
Well, if MO is right on p. 113, then MO himself has not given us complete
explanations why p. 92 {leS} (n) and p. 90 {Hu'} (n) have become time words
(which I still think are "adverbs" in function). There is other evidence that
specific Klingon nouns may function as adverbs: {Dat}, {naDev}, and {pa'}.
Hmm. Specific Klingon nouns may function as adverbs; not all nouns will ever
function as adverbs. Unlike in languages of Earth, we cannot add on an
equivalent of "-ly" of English or "-siya" of Swahili and change just any noun
into an adverb. peHruS muses aloud.
I see I'm not through thinking about this.
peHruS