[1767] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Daily Musings
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Oct 19 18:16:34 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: erich@bush.cs.tamu.edu (Erich Schneider)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Cc: tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 17:09:41 CDT
In-Reply-To: <9310192127.AA23675@client.its.rpi.edu> (cleggp@rpi.edu)
From: cleggp@rpi.edu
>Well, I was in class today, and came up with the hugest compound word (as
>well as some simpler sentences I thought I'd fly by you guys).
>cha'leS ghuntaHghachHolpaQDI'norghvaD chov vIchaj.
>Day after tomorrow I have an exam in programming languages class... :)
I'm assuming "paQDI'norgh" means "class" (I manually typed in all of
the TKD lexicon and seemed to have forgotten to give the gloss for
this word. To answer any replies in advance, no, you can't have a
copy, because that would be copyright violation.) "chov" is a verb,
"examine"; for "examination" you'd need "chovghach". Also, I suspect
you meant "vIghaj" for "vIchaj", as "chaj" isn't a known word. Even
better might be to substitute "jIchovlu'" for "chovghach vIghaj".
"programming language" I might translate: "ghunghach Hol", "language
of 'programming-a-computer'". "ghuntaHghach" would be something like
"the act of programming a computer which proceeds without definite
goal".
I don't think there are rules for making arbitrary new compound words,
so we have to stick to N-N constructions.
>(Yeah, it's a BS word... But it brings up my following point:)
>That huge word is my attempt to come up with a way of saying "Programming
>Languages Class". This doesn't really fit the noun-noun construction
>(it's not really "class' programming languages", nor is it "the programming
>languages' class"). So does this mean I'm forced to use that unweildy
>compound noun.
Yes, it does appear there isn't an easy way to make adjectives out of
nouns. Again, I don't think we can arbitrarily construct new compound
nouns, espeically if one of the constituents is a -ghach form.
>So my guess is that my huge word is at least partially correct. Though
>this example may be incorrect, is it "legal" to use verb suffixes before
>the -ghach nominalizer?
Sure. Except type 9, of course.
>Other stuff I came up with...
>Dalqu' SoQvam
>jatlhlaHbe'chu' ghojmoHwI'vam
"ghojmoHwI' Dun 'oH 'oy''e'" jatlh tlhInganpu'.
-QumpIn 'avrIn
erich@bush.cs.tamu.edu
