[97849] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: Say'qu'moH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Wed Jan 15 04:29:39 2014
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: Lieven <levinius@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:29:16 +0000
In-Reply-To: <52D65129.7020200@gmx.de>
Cc: "tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org"
<tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
I believe what De'vID is suggesting that {lo'laH} could not have become itsown stem by that route, since that route wasn't open before it was a verb stem.
That being said, it's worth noting that we don't know for how long the current suffix order has been in place; there was a time when {ghIj qet jaghmeyjaj} was a valid sentence.
Also, it could be that {lo'laH} became its own verb stem *because* it was abused in the way Ruben suggests; people were saying {lo'laHlu'}, and the only way to reconcile this with Klingon grammar was to consider {lo'laH} its own verb stem.
Of course, there are many other possibilities. Perhaps {lo'} once had a meaning similar to {Qap} or {lI'}, with little distinction between the ability to use and the ability to be used; utility and resourcefulness are both possible measures of function.
We were discussing a similar example on the Conlangs group on Facebook, yesterday: The noun "ward" is most commonly used to mean "somebody/something to be guarded", but an older use of the word also has it as "somebody/something that guards".
Or, perhaps words like {vIlo'laHbe'bogh} were used so often that people started dropping affixes and using the word as an adjective. Perhaps it could even be derived from Clipped Klingon?
> 15 jan 2014 kl. 10:13 skrev "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de>:
>
>
> ja' Bellerophon:
> >>> Isn't {lo'laH} an exception?
>
> ja' Ruben Molina:
>>> [...]
>>> Maybe {lo'laH} was related with the "use-value" of a commodity: {lo'laHlu'}
>
> ja' De'vID:
>> 'ach DuHbe' *{lo'laHlu'}. tay'laHbe' {-laH} {-lu'} je.
>
> You are right, we cannot use two same type suffixes together in the way that Ruben is using it above. But if I understand the explanation correctly, {lo'laH} "be valuable" is really one verb (quote: "not the verb lo' plus Type 5 suffix"), then it must be okay to say
>
> {lo'laHlaH} "it is able to be valuable"
>
> --
> Lieven L. Litaer
> aka Quvar valer 'utlh
> http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
