[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: {-mo'} noun suffix vs. {-mo'} verb suffix

[John R. Harness]

Thanks for explaining. I now understand your thought process.

My own assertion is that it is reasonable to discuss one suffix, -mo',
which has two functions. I think the major differences in my thought
process (as opposed to yours) that lead me to my assertion is that 1) I
don't want to lean on the same possible implications of "identical" as you
do; and 2) I think there is sufficient difference between the ideas "use a
noun as a verb or vise versa" (outlawed by Okrand) and "use a suffix that
attaches to both nouns and verbs" (what I think Okrand authorizes with
"identical").

Though I think that, as SuStel suggests, this may be a debatable point that
does not make a real difference in usage. Perhaps I think it is more
pedagogically useful to think of -mo' as one thing instead of two, leading
me to tend to think of it that way.

'arHa


--

Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/>
Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:17 PM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Okrand has explained that when a noun and a verb are spelled the same,
> it’s not the case that you are using a noun as a verb or vise versa. You
> can’t simply use nouns as verbs or verbs as nouns. {bach} (verb, shoot),
> and {bach} (noun, shot) are not the same word. They sound alike and in our
> notation, they are spelled the same, but one is a noun and one is a verb
> and they are definitely two different words.
>
> It is a very short extension of that idea to say that {-mo’} as a verb
> suffix and {-mo’} as a noun suffix are two different suffixes that happen
> to sound a like and have similar meanings.
>
> Okay, so I open TKD and confirm that the noun suffix {-mo’} is introduced
> among the Type 5 noun suffixes. The verb suffix {-mo’} is not introduced
> until the Appendix, 4.2.9, page 175:
>
> “This suffix is identical to the Type 5 noun suffix {-mo’} and has the
> same meaning, /due to, because of/.”
>
> Notice that two different things can be identical to each other, but one
> thing is not identical unto itself.
>
> If I had a twin, we could be identical to each other.
>
> I don’t have a twin. I am not identical.
>
> The two different {-mo’} suffixes are identical. There is no one {-mo’}
> suffix used two ways.
>
> pItlh
> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2016, at 3:47 PM, John R. Harness <cartweel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What is the thought process that leads you to this assertion?
>
> Because without some sort of fictional history claiming that two words
> coincidentally achieved the same form with the same meaning, I'd interpret
> this (-mo' and -mo') as a suffix with two uses.
>
>
> --
>
> Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/>
> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:40 AM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv <
> lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> {-mo’} applied to a noun phrase can’t change to behave like a verb suffix
>> any more than {-Daq} or {-‘e’} or {-vaD}. The noun and verb suffixes {-mo’}
>> and {-mo’} sound alike and have a similar sense of meaning, but they are
>> not the same suffix, any more than “wear” and “ware” are the same words in
>> English. Since we write Klingon phonetically, we can’t have different
>> spellings of homonyms to differentiate them.
>>
>> pItlh
>> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160218/b802faf3/attachment-0001.html>