tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 27 21:52:10 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: geography

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: geography
• Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:40:18 -0500
• In-reply-to: <QNIHE65KHDBXU3W73WUDA2V61UO09YT.4043d530@quvar>
• References: <QNIHE65KHDBXU3W73WUDA2V61UO09YT.4043d530@quvar>

ja' SuStel:
>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.

What rules do we lack?  TKD shows us compound nouns made up of multiple
parts, and even gives us an example where one of those parts is itself a
complex noun formed of a verb and the {-wI'} suffix.  The rule is obvious
-- the two nouns just get concatenated.  That's all.

What *I* see missing is a consistent way to *interpret* such a noun when it
isn't one given to us in the dictionary.  Noun-noun "possessive" doesn't
always work -- {puqloD} isn't a child's man, it's a "squish" (to borrow
your term) of two words without one necessarily modifying the other.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • Re: geography
    • From: Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar) <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: lIghon (n)
• Next by Date: Re: Klingon Language Highlights
• Previous by thread: Re: geography
• Next by thread: Re: geography
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level