tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 18 15:03:07 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'op puS qechmey vIghaj
charghwI' wrote:
: mu' <<'op>> vIqel. 'op law' lo'mey vIqel. 'op puS vIwuq.
: Consider the following progression:
:
: pagh
: 'op puSqu'
: 'op puS
: 'op
: 'op law'
: 'op law'qu'
: HochHom
: Hoch
:
: Could we also consider {paghHom}?
Meaning "little nothing(s)? Hmm... is that what Klingon females shout at their
males whilst throwing heavy objects at them during foreplay? <g>
WRT adding {-Hom} and {'a'}, why not add *{pagh'a'}, *{Hoch'a'}, *{'opHom} and
*{'op'a'} to your progression?
A usage note: If {'op} works more or less like {Hoch} - which most of us
assume - then it may not be able to be modified by a quality, like {puS} and
{law'}. I've checked the many examples of {Hoch} in canon and it is never
modified by a quality, only another noun (i.e. {Hoch NOUN} or {NOUN Hoch}).
Before anyone counters with the very odd {A Q law' Hoch Q puS} formula,
remember that {puS} isn't modifying {Hoch}, it's apparently modifying Q, the
quality being compared - but if that's so, that raises another question as to
how one quality can modify another directly, or why the word order seems to be
backwards. (Well, Okrand would probably say that the formula is a relict from
an extinct historical dialect to "modern" Klingon with somewhat different
grammatical rules!)
And another thought: If {'op} can be modified with a quality, why not *{'op
tIn} or *{'op mach} instead?
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons