tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 01 11:29:32 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chuv
In a message dated 3/1/2004 2:12:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
>
>
> 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
Call it a {chuvwI'} and avoid the problem 8+)
-- ter'eS
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}