tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 09:13:00 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'

David Trimboli ( [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

QeS 'utlh wrote:
>> (It does show a type 5 noun suffix applying to an entire phrase
>> instead of just the word it's attached to, but this should come as no
>> surprise, given phrases like {veng tInDaq}.)
> And {qep'a' wejDIchDaq}. Although if you accept that a type 5 noun
> suffix attaches to whole phrases in that way, what do you believe is
> wrong with {qach vIleghboghDaq}?

The former is a name; the latter is not. I do not accept that type 5 
noun suffixes attach to whole phrases unless those phrases are 
indivisible units called "names." And that is just speculation based on 
a single example.

But even then, the ordinals seem to me to be something odd. I was just 
pondering the sentence

    I saw the boss at the third meeting.

Which of these is correct?

    qepDaq wejDIch pIn vIlegh
    qep wejDIchDaq pIn vIlegh

I suspect it's the latter, and the justification is in TKD: "Numbers are 
used as nouns. As such they may stand along as subjects or objects or 
they may modify another noun." Therefore, {qep wejDIch} may be 
considered a noun phrase, and it may be appropriate to add {-Daq} to it.

Stardate 7958.1

Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.

Back to archive top level