tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 03 07:28:26 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon WOTD: noH (verb)

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: noH (verb)
• Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 10:28:00 EDT

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 10/3/2005 8:29:37 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:


> > I don't see why you say it's a noun.  I'm unclear
> > about how {chorghSaD 
> > qelI'qam} fits in the sentence, but {HIvchuq} is
> > just "(he/she/it/they) attack each 
> > other".  
> > There's really no discussion.  They're notes from
> > Star Trek 5: The Final 
> > Frontier.  But it is canon.
> >
> 
> In this case, I think the word is actually made
> from {HIv} "attack" + {chuq} "range, distance".
> KGT has {HIvDuj}, so using {HIv} this way isn't
> entirely unknown.  I don't know if {HIvchuq}
> appears anywhere except the movie, though.
> 
> So, if {HIvchuq} is (like {HIVDuj}) a noun, then
> the criticism is valid.
> 
> > lay'tel SIvten
> > 
> 
> -- ter'eS
> 

Okay, now I know why it might be considered a noun, or at least a noun phrase.
Now it makes even less sense grammatically than it did before.

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Klingon WOTD: noH (verb)
    • From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: noH (verb)
• Next by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: noH (verb)
• Previous by thread: Re: Klingon WOTD: noH (verb)
• Next by thread: Re: Klingon WOTD: noH (verb)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level