tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 27 17:13:45 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: {Qong} and other unattested nouns

Shane MiQogh ([email protected]) 

QeS 'utlh <[email protected]> wrote:  ghItlhpu' Voragh, ja':
>Clearly he was considering Proechel's liberal approach but wanted to give 
>the matter further thought.

True. Okrand has never been definite on whether this liberal approach is 
right, although he has cautioned against being *too* liberal: "Though the 
pairs exist and cry out for explanation, until there is more study on the 
matter, I don't think one can argue that Klingon verbs (even if we're only 
talking about a small set of verbs) can be used as nouns (or vice versa)" 
(MSN newsgroup, 18-06-1997). Has anyone done such a study of the noun-verb 
pairs in TKD?

My problem with being too liberal with the boundaries between noun and verb 
lies in the fact that, even in the pairs we know do exist, the difference 
between the noun and the verb isn't always the same. In the interview with 
Okrand in HolQeD 3:3, the following transformations are listed:

{boQ} "assist" > {boQ} "aide" (agent)
{leH} "maintain" > {leH} "maintenance" (gerund)
{nob} "give" > {nob} "gift" (patient)

There are a couple of other types of transformation not listed in that 
interview, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

>Also, note his clever suggestion in accommodating both schools of
>thought: {Qong} may have been a noun in "earlier stage in the
>language", but it's no longer used in the "modern" (24th century) stage.

I'd say that the word {QongDaq} "bed" is pretty good evidence for an old 
noun *{Qong}, since the noun-noun construction would be reconstructed as 
*{Qong Daq}, "sleep location" or "sleep site".

>There's another candidate: {naj} "dream".

It's interesting that you bring that up, as I've often thought that {naj} 
would be a prime candidate for the Most Likely Verb To Have A Corresponding 
Noun Form award. However, it's also possible that Klingons would be more 
likely to say {jInajtaHvIS... (bla bla bla)} instead of {(bla bla bla)... 
'e' bop najwIj}.

>Although we only know it as a verb in TKD, it was used as a noun in the
>VOYAGER episode "Barge of the Dead". One of the passengers on the
>Barge of the Dead tells B'Ellana, "That was the {naj}--the 'dream before
>dying'. When we can't accept that we've died we create the illusion of
>life to hold on to."

Obviously not Okrandian canon, but it does sound reasonable, doesn't it?

QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute


not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

_________________________________________________________________
1000s of Sexy Singles online now at Lavalife - Click here 
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3Den%5FAU%26a%3D22031&_t=751140432&_m=EXT




I don't know if mu' HaqwI' had much basis on the format it uses, but it seems that it allows only type 5 noun suffixes placed onto verbs... and TKD vaguely hints on usage of type 5 noun suffixes on verbs. The real question would come to mind of where one would place the type 5 noun suffix on a verb that already has suffixes, or if it's treated as a rover. Perhaps then that type 5 suffixes could be another way to convert verbs to nouns. This makes pronouns even more possible to be conjugated forms of "to be".
		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1&cent;/min.

Back to archive top level