[84477] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: cha' Hol ngeb mu'ghommey Daj vItu'pu'!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Tue Apr 22 19:17:32 2008
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:14:29 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <6.2.1.2.2.20080422133503.02594eb0@imap.uchicago.edu>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Steven Boozer wrote:
> Voragh:
>>>>> *{paqtej} "bibliographer"?
>>>>> *{paqSuy} "bookseller"?
>
> SuStel:
>>>> I see no basis on which you can turn these into compound nouns. {paq
>>>> tej, paq Suy}. The first one is a little vague as well; "book scientist"
>>>> might mean several things.
>
> I see no basis on which we can't. The fact that we have no known examples
> in the corpus of these two specific nouns appearing in compounds is not
> evidence that they can't be so used.
One cannot go coining compound nouns. TKD explains how compound nouns
are formed, but it doesn't give us license to make our own.
> SuStel:
>> If your basic premise were correct, I would accept *{paqQeD}
>> unhesitatingly. We do have more evidence regarding {QeD} in compound
>> nouns, so I'd have a lot less trouble accepting *{paqQeD} as a
>> well-formed word, regardless of the validity of *{paqtej}.
>
> Okrand writes WRT Klingon science:
>
> Three groups of words in particular are, for the most part,
> unrepresented: scientific terminology [...] Terms associated
> with the various sciences are the subject of a special study,
> and a report is currently being prepared. [TKD 9]
>
> Until that report is ready, we can only look at the known examples {HolQeD}
> "linguistics", {nughQeD} "sociology" and {HuchQeD} "economics" - though
> Okrand hints that the latter is not exactly kosher:
We can look at them, but their existence is not proof of a license to
compound {QeD} with anything. At best we can say that there is a pattern
to follow. But the followation of that pattern may be errage, even if it
seems perfectly senseful.
--
SuStel
Stardate 8309.2
