[3703] in tlhIngan-Hol
Phone message
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Mar 9 02:44:40 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
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: awest@netlink.nix.com (Amy West)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 94 23:33:47 PST
Reply-To: awest@netlink.nix.com
On Tue 8 Mar 94 03:21, Mark E. Shoulson writes:
>>tlhIngan veSDuj bortaS DaSIchpu' - You have reached the Klingon
>>warship Bortas.
> Maybe DaQum?
>>rI'lIj wIjanglaHbe' - We are unable to answer your hail.
> Um, I don't have "rI'" as a noun. Are we accepting implicit
> nomilalizations? I'm still fuzzy on it.
I figured that if there were a noun for "hail", then it would be
{rI'}. Hopefully, putting a noun suffix on a root verb is enough
to indicate nominalization without having to first put on a -ghach,
which (according to some interpretations) is for verbs that end in a
verb suffix. I don't know if this is acceptable standard procedure
though because I've seen a lot of root verbs + -ghach.
>>chuSdaq ponglIj rI'Se'lIj je junobchugh, vaj pIrI' - If you give us
>>your name and hailing frequency at the sound, we will hail you.
> "chuS" is also a verb. I'm also not sure about "-Daq" here; our
> evidence points to "-Daq" as being spatial, not temporal. Maybe
> "ghum DaQoyDI'..."?
You're right about the -Daq.. I would have said {DaQoyDI'} myself
if I were just writing it now.. but this was written some time
ago. I guess "ghum" is OK, but a simple noun for "sound" would
be nice.
Amy
awest@netlink.nix.com
