tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 23 04:43:56 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: mIvDaq yIH

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: mIvDaq yIH
• Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:43:01 EDT

In a message dated 2004-06-22 10:47:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> I like to think of a noun-noun construction this way: The first noun 
> actually already has a Type 5 suffix - a null suffix: -(0). If a noun 
> already has this type 5 suffix - for instance, {tel-(0) wovmoHwI'} "wing's 
> light" - you can't add another Type 5 suffix, any more than you can say 
> *{vIleghpu'taH} or *{Sor'a'oy}. So {mIvDaq} and {yIH} aren't parts of a 
> noun-noun construction, but two grammatically unlinked nouns that just 
> happen to be next to each other.
> 
> Savan.
> 
> QeS lagh
> 
Why create a hypothetical null type 5 suffix just to avoid adding another 
type 5 suffix?  When you do that, you already violate the TKD rule against type 5 
suffixes on the first noun in the noun-noun construction.  Aren't you 
avoiding an error by using the same error?

lay'tel SIvten

• Prev by Date: Klingon WOTD: teghbat (n)
• Next by Date: Re: mIvDaq yIH
• Previous by thread: Re: mIvDaq yIH
• Next by thread: Re: mIvDaq yIH
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level