[3061] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Adams Family Motto:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Feb 9 11:40:37 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: Mark Reed <Mark.Reed@cad.gatech.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 11:28:27 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <9402091609.AA09299@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU> from "Will Martin" at
Feb 9, 94 11:07:52 am
\> ...For example, vision (and this might be a bit
\> overreacting on my part) has changed from leghlaHghach to leghwI'laH,
\> the ability of a seer.
\
\ Sorry, Nick. You can't nominalize a verb and then use a verb suffix on
\it. Once you add {-wI'} the word is a noun, and as such cannot accept {-laH}.
\{legh} is a verb. {leghwI'} is a noun. {leghwI'laH} is a non-word. That is
\not to say that your non-word is not interesting. The tumbling thoughts it
\creates are quite nice. It just doesn't happen to nearly follow the
\grammatical rules of Klingon.
Even if you take leghwI' to somehow retain its verbness, -wI' is a
type 9 suffix, while -laH is a type 5 - so {*leghwI'laH} is incorrect from
that perspective, as well. {leghlaHwI'} is a perfectly legal word, But
it means "one who can see", not "the ability to see". I still think
{leghlaHghach} is the best way to say "vision". Let's not overreact
back the other way about this whole -ghach business. Yes, it was
overused, but it is still a very useful suffix that provides the most
succinct ways of expressing certain concepts in thlIngan Hol.
-marqoS
