tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 19 04:35:01 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap
• Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 07:34:18 EDT

In a message dated 2004-06-18 8:06:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> the word used in the Klingon Hamlet for 
> "actor" or "player" was {DawI'}. Since it lacks a pronoun prefix, this word 
> doesn't agree with any object (the subject agreement could theoretically be 
> argued to be the suffix itself, but I'm not buying into that hairy 
> argument).
> 
> Savan.
> 
> QeS lagh
> 
The possibility of verbs plus suffix {-wI'} taking prefixes has been 
discussed here more than once.  To me it makes no sense for there to be a prefix on 
such a word.  And the meaning of such words is literally "one who/that is/does", 
i.e. the prototypical subject of the verb.  Someone has pointed out that many 
of the verbs plus {-wI'} are actually the means of performing the action, 
e.g. "ghItlhwI'".

lay'tel SIvten

• Prev by Date: Klingon WOTD: lopno' (n)
• Next by Date: Re: ghuH
• Previous by thread: RE: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap
• Next by thread: Re: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level