tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 26 21:06:37 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Order of ordinals
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Order of ordinals
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 00:06:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
First of all, I think you are getting a bit wound up over rather
unproven stuff.
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:14:55 -0800 (PST) TPO <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >"First, live honorably. Second, die with honor."
> >
> >By adverbially, I mean that ordinals (-DIch} could function
> >somewhat like {-logh}, which is adverbial.
> >
> >This is PURE speculation:
>
> Qu' wa'DIch, blah blah blah.
> Qu' cha'DIch, blah blah blah.
That's not what I said. Qu' wa'DIchvaD. mIw wa'DIchvaD. There's
a difference. The {-vaD} is important.
> or
>
> wanI' wa'DIch, blah blah blah.
> wanI' cha'DIch, blah blah blah.
>
> why repeat [Qu'] or [wanI'] (or whatever noun the ordinals are attached to).
> Clip them off.
Clipping happens to prefixes. It doesn't tend to happen to whole
words. The difference is that stating "For the first step..." or
"For the first task..." follows current grammar and word usage
as given. "Clipping" changes the way we use the ordinals such
that it becomes adverbial.
Maybe using them adverbially is okay. I'm personally not sure
enough to condone it, though I will likely let it slide without
much protest if I see others using it. I'm neither sure it is
right nor am I sure it is wrong. I don't know. I'll hold off
using it myself until I feel a need for it or until I see some
evidence from Okrand one way or the other.
> wa'DIch,...
> cha'DIch,...
>
>
> DloraH
charghwI' 'utlh