[93212] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] being capable of language suffix class -
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Thu May 10 13:08:22 2012
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 13:08:03 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmN4iwaqJtNWyN9+8CP+4-S7RK=xpZFJMT-srcmvpwxJqg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On 5/10/2012 12:27 PM, De'vID jonpIn wrote:
>
> Quvar:
> >> On proof for this is the slang expression {Ho'} for "hero, idol", which
> >> will be {Ho'Du'} and {Ho'wIj} even when used to refer to a person.
>
> SuStel:
> > There are many examples of this. Another is how pot handles are
> called {DeSqIvDu'}, even though they're not body parts.
> >
> > Using a word or suffix appropriate to the referent instead of the
> noun may not be wrong, but it will call strong attention to what you've
> done.
>
> maj. It seems clear it would be {wIvwIj} even if {wIv} referred to a
> person.
>
> A related question: is it {cha'DIchwI'} because {cha'DIch} in this sense
> refers to a person (i.e., it isn't quite the same word as the ordinal
> number "second"), or is it {cha'DIchwIj} (because it's the same word as
> the number and follows the logic of {wIv})?
I don't see any reason to think that {cha'DIch} as a noun is most
strongly related to a *thing*. In this case I would expect the suffix to
depend on usage.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
