tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 01 11:12:44 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: chuv

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: chuv
• Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:12:04 -0500
• References: <[email protected]>

From: <[email protected]>

> since tkd says
> chuv - be left over (v)
> chuvmey - leftovers (grammatical term) (n)
>
> would it be legit to say that {chuv} can also be used as a singular noun
> meaning 'a leftover (grammatical term)'?  or must it always be used in the
plural?

I wouldn't say that.  {chuvmey} has its own entry in TKD; {chuv} (n) is
nowhere in sight.  If {chuv} (n) were a normal, lexicalized word, why
wouldn't it have had its own entry, instead of {chuvmey}?

It is likely that {chuvmey} is a special piece of grammatical argot (indeed,
it is defined as a grammatical term) that developed with grammarians
wiggling their quotation fingers (or the Klingon equivalent) whenever they
said it, until it became the defacto word; or else it's a . . . ahem . . .
leftover from a noun form of {chuv} that no longer exists.

SuStel
Stardate 4166.4

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: chuv
    • From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • chuv
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: RE: Segh Soch mojaq <<-pu'>>
• Next by Date: RE: Segh Soch mojaq <<-pu'>>
• Previous by thread: Re: chuv
• Next by thread: Re: chuv
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level