tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 22 07:48:36 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: paghHu'/paghleS

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja lay'tel SIvten:
>I take the position that EVERY possible construction is productive.  The
>language must have a means for expanding without resorting to canon and
>Okrand for
>every little detail.

jaS <lInglaH> Dayajlaw'.  qIt mu' law', 'ach lI'be' Hatbe'bogh 'op.  <bIr>
luboqchugh <-lu'> <-wI'> je, chen nuq?


Perhaps your understanding of the term "productive" differs from mine (and
SuStel's).  You can generate a great many constructions by following the
rules, but not all of them make sense once they've been created.  For a
trivial example, pick any verb expressing a state or quality, add the type
5 suffix {-lu'}, then add the type 9 suffix {-wI'}.  What does {bIrlu'wI'}
mean?

>Granted, the meanings of phrases like {paghHu'} are not
>attested in canon.  But the words are possible, and now there is a reasonable
>meaning for them.

nuqjatlh?  chay' *DaH* chenpu' qech lI'?  Da'oghmo' SoH'e', lughbej'a'
qech?  ghu' yIqelchu', lay'tel SIvten.  chaq yablIjDaq lughba'.  Qoch
latlhpu'.  mujchu' nIja'be' latlhpu'.  mujlaH nIja'.  lughlaH 'e' wISovbe'.

What do you mean by "*now* there is a reasonable meaning"?  You proposed a
novel, unobvious, and previously unseen usage.  You invented an
interpretation of "zero days ago" as meaning "earlier today".  I for one
don't accept that as "reasonable".

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level