tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 10 08:10:47 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: {Hov'a'} pagh {Hov'a'}be'

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

From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
> BTW: SuStel Holtej je: DIpmey'e' chenmoHlu'pu'bogh SughoHpu'DI', nuq
bowuq?
> chenmoHlaH'a' vay', pagh chennISmoHbe''a' vay'?
> SuStel and Holtej: What did you decide with respect to compound nouns? I
> recall you exchanged theories on the subject a little while ago.

We haven't DECIDED anything.  Holtej pointed out that there is at least one
case of an apparently productive compounding in canon, and I agree.  I don't
think compounding nouns is much more productive than that; I'm not of the
opinion that you can compound any old nouns you like.  Generally, in my
opinion, compound nouns should be lexicalized words; non-lexicalized
concepts should be expressed as noun-noun constructions.

pagh wIwuqqu' rIntaH.  *Okrand* mu'tlheghmeyDaq wa' rarbogh DIp chang'engHey
'ej lI'law'bogh tu'lu'.  jIQochbe'.  DIpmey rarmoHghach lI' law' *Okrand*
mu'tlhegh chenmoHmeH mIw lI' puS 'e' vIHarbe'.  wa' mu' lumojlaH Hoch DIp
latlh DIp je 'e' vIHarbe'.  motlh mu'ghomDaq wa' mu' mojpu'bogh cha' DIp'e'
tu'lu'law'.  mu'ghomDaq qech tu'lu'be'chugh, tlhej'eghbogh cha' DIp
lo'nISlu'.

We don't have the power to decide things on this list.  There's been a lot
of proclaiming and deciding here recently anyway . . . .

naDev mawuqqu'be'.  'ach qen naDev maqlu'taH 'ej wuqlu'taH . . . .

SuStel
Stardate 4190.7

Back to archive top level