tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 27 12:22:34 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Order of ordinals



>First of all, I think you are getting a bit wound up over rather 
>unproven stuff.

I'm not getting wound up about anything here.  Others were talking about
putting the -DIch at the beginning of the sentance.  So I sent this as a
possible explaination.

>> >"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.

I wasn't refering to the sentences with -vaD


>> 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.

I wasn't talking about the offical "Clipped Klingon".
I was simply saying "why say the same word over again in every sentence.?"
Many times people leave repeated words out of sentences.  context makes it
clear.


DloraH



Back to archive top level