tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 01 13:08:26 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: geography

d'Armond Speers, Ph.D. ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

> TKD gives us rules for combining nouns.  This is the noun-noun
> construction.
>
> TKD does not give us rules for squishing two nouns into the same word.
> These are compound nouns, and TKD simply describes them; it doesn't
> say we can construct them.
>
> I would accept {puH tej} as a legal construction.  Without the
> consent of a Klingon, I would not accept {puHtej}.

I just want to point out that this is not a universally accepted position.
Here's what TKD says about compound nouns:

TKD 3.2.1 Compound nouns
Compound nouns consist of two or three nouns in a row, much like English
/earthworm/ (/earth/ plus /worm/) or /password/ (/pass/ plus /word/).  For
example, {jolpa'} /transport room/ consists of {jol} /transport beam/ plus
{pa'} /room/.

In addition, in 3.2.2 Verb plus {-wI'}, TKD adds (on p. 20):

"A noun formed by adding {-wI'} to a verb is a regular noun, so it may be
used along wtih another noun to form a compound noun.  For example,
{tIjwI'ghom} /boarding party/ comes from {tIjwI'} /boarder/ plus {ghom}
/group/; and {tIjwI'} comes from {tIj} /board/ plus {-wI'}."

I'm not sure what specific words you're looking for in TKD that would allow
productive use of compound nouns, but the text "...may be used along with
another noun to form a compound noun" seems to me to allow this.  But even
without these words, I don't see a distinction made in TKD between mere
descriptions of non-productive word-forming processes and productive
word-forming processes that would justify such a restriction against novel
compound nouns.  Also note, that the example word here, {tIjwI'ghom}, is not
in the wordlist.  This seems to me to be pretty strong evidence that this is
a productive process.

For the record, I *would* accept {puHtej} as a context-specific description
of a geologist or whatever, but I wouldn't add it to an offical lexicon
(like I wouldn't add {tIjwI'}).  It would need further explanation, to
distinguish it from, say, a cartographer or a surveyor.  And once that
context has expired, it would need new explanation in a novel context.  I
don't see this as a limitation of compounding, but merely a fact about how
languages work.  I could use the word "linguist," but different contexts
might apply this word to language teachers, professional translators,
phonologists, socio-linguists, and so on, and only a specific context will
make that clear.

> And if you say they're the same thing when you say them, then you'll
> have no problem with writing it as {puH tej}.

I don't think they're the same thing when spoken.  I don't pronounce {SuS
tel} the same way that I pronounce {SuStel}.

> SuStel
> Stardate 4166.4

-- Holtej

Back to archive top level