tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 25 19:26:37 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: agentive -wI'
ja' [email protected]:
>You don't custom make nominalized verbs with {-wI'}, unless you are being
>humorous or poetic. For the most part, you use {-wI'} to build that which is
>intended to become a common element of vocabulary, not a custom made phrase.
To be more accurate, *you* use {-wI'} that way. I don't see any reason to
enforce that usage, or to call differing usage wrong. I understand the
points you make. I merely disagree with them.
Perhaps there's a difference in mental models at work here. You tend to
explain your analysis of sentences as an explicit process where each
element gets parsed and its meaning incorporated into the idea being built.
I generally don't experience any need to slice things up that finely,
instead getting a more holistic impression of what I hear or read. As I
said in an earlier note, constructions such as {QomnISlaw'wI'} *work* when
I encounter them, without any undue concentration required.
>...The issue is what
>verbs and suffixes combine with {-wI'} to clearly express the meaning
>assignment of a noun for common vocabulary.
Nope, I don't buy it. I won't treat {-wI'} as a special suffix useful only
for things one might expect to find in a dictionary.
>So, are you saying that you have no problem with {QomnISlaw'wI'}? You really
>think Okrand should include that in his next vocabulary list?
There's a disconnect in the chain of argument here. Since I don't share
your belief that {-wI'} is meant to create "common elements of vocabulary",
I don't accept the implication that understanding a nominalized verb makes
it appropriate for writing in an official vocabulary list.
>Or are you saying that you should be able to cram any Relative Clause into one
>word with {-wI'} so long as there is no explicit head noun?
i don't see it that way. Sure, almost any {-wI'} usage can be emulated
well with a relative clause, but they aren't the same thing.
> Or maybe you
>additionally require that the head noun of a Relative Clause needs to be the
>subject of the verb and unstated in order for the Relative Clause to be
>expressed as a nominalized verb using {-wI'}.
No, I'm firmly on the "no verb prefix" side of that debate.
>I think this whole trend of building new, incidental, unnecessary words to
>replace Relative Clauses is misguided.
Temporary coinages aren't a problem in my view.
>Your name has become part of the common vocabulary. I have no problem with it.
It looks like your test for acceptability is "common vocabulary". So if
{QomnISlaw'wI'} caught on and became a commonly used noun, would you
likewise drop your complaint about *it*?
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh