tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 24 17:44:34 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: pu'jIn

ghunchu'wI' (qunchuy@alcaco.net)



On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:22 PM, Christopher Doty wrote:

> ** ... it is possible to combine nouns in the manner of a compound
> noun to produce a new construct even if it is not a legitimate
> compound noun ("legitimate" in the sense that it would be found in a
> dictionary.)**
>
> To me, this means that nouns can be strung together at will, assuming
> that the sense is reasonable.

Read on in TKD for an explanation of *how* to combine nouns in that  
way.  The nouns follow one another; they do not attach to one another.

On Nov 24, 2009, at 8:01 PM, André Müller wrote:

> Is there any known semantic or phonological or syntactic or  
> morphological
> (read: ANY) difference between a noun–noun construction and a  
> compound in
> Klingon, besides the orthography?

For a semantic difference, perhaps {'Iwghargh} "bloodworm" vs. {'Iw  
ghargh} "blood's worm" or "worm of blood"?

I can't speak for everyone, but when I say {HolQeD}, the first  
syllable gets less stress than when I say {Hol QeD}.

-- ghunchu'wI'





Back to archive top level