tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 23 04:51:27 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: mIvDaq yIH

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>

> 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.


Let's all play the Make Up Bogus Grammar To Justify Breaking the Rules Game!

*{mIvDaq yIH}is WRONG.  Why is everyone spending so much effort to find a
magical way to justify it?  There's no missing elided verb, it's not two
unrelated words, it's a blatant violation of a straightforward rule in TKD.

Everyone is always ready to recast a sentence to say it in Klingon - except
if the original would lead to a Type 5 on the first noun of a noun-noun.
Why does everyone want to find a sneaky way around this rule?  Listen up!
Klingon is not English.  Just live with it.  It's not hard to deal with.
What's so difficult about saying {mIv tuQbogh yIH}?

"Two grammatically unlinked nouns that just happen to be next to each
other"?  If they're grammatically unlinked, then {mIvDaq} isn't modifying
{yIH}?  Oh yeah?

SuStel
Stardate 4477.7

Back to archive top level