[87074] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: pu'jIn
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Tue Nov 24 20:44:53 2009
In-Reply-To: <a1173fff0911241622y1d00937er98be2720baa691fa@mail.gmail.com>
From: "ghunchu'wI'" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:43:57 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:22 PM, Christopher Doty wrote:
> ** ... it is possible to combine nouns in the manner of a compound
> noun to produce a new construct even if it is not a legitimate
> compound noun ("legitimate" in the sense that it would be found in a
> dictionary.)**
>
> To me, this means that nouns can be strung together at will, assuming
> that the sense is reasonable.
Read on in TKD for an explanation of *how* to combine nouns in that
way. The nouns follow one another; they do not attach to one another.
On Nov 24, 2009, at 8:01 PM, André Müller wrote:
> Is there any known semantic or phonological or syntactic or
> morphological
> (read: ANY) difference between a noun–noun construction and a
> compound in
> Klingon, besides the orthography?
For a semantic difference, perhaps {'Iwghargh} "bloodworm" vs. {'Iw
ghargh} "blood's worm" or "worm of blood"?
I can't speak for everyone, but when I say {HolQeD}, the first
syllable gets less stress than when I say {Hol QeD}.
-- ghunchu'wI'
