[3062] in tlhIngan-Hol
Adams Family Motto:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Feb 9 11:43:58 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: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 11:40:30 -0500
In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Wed, 9 Feb 94 11:07:52 EST <9402091609.AA
09299@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 11:07:52 EST
>On Feb 9, 12:12am, Nick NICHOLAS wrote:
>> ...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.
Sorry, charghwI', but Nick's right. His compound is ok. You missed
another meaning of "laH". It isn't just a verb-suffix; it's also a noun in
its own right, meaning "ability". So "leghwI'laH" is a compound word of
"leghwI'" plus "laH", meaning "seer's ability" (noun-noun construction,
in one compound word, like jolpa')
>charghwI'
~mark
