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

[SuStel]

I assume you meant this message to go to the list. I've left the 
original in its entirety below my own message.

> In the word list of TKD he lists all identical words of different
> parts of speech as separate entries in the Klingon->English side.
> When I look up “stamp” in my Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has one
> listing that says “Stamp v. & n….” That suggests one word used two
> ways.

I hardly expect TKD to be formatted under the same principles as the 
Concise Oxford Dictionary.

> In the end, neither declaration is earth-shaking. For me, it’s
> simple. A different part of speech implies a different word. You can
> say that they have “the same meaning”, but if they are not the same
> part of speech, I think that implies that they don’t really have
> quite the same meaning.
>
> If they did, then the concept of “part of speech” would become
> meaningless, since by your argument, it has nothing to do with
> meaning.

I didn't argue that part of speech has nothing to do with meaning. I 
didn't say that {bach} the noun and {bach} the verb have the same 
meaning. I said that it might be the case that a single word can be used 
as a noun and as a verb at different times.

I see nothing in canon to suggest that "a different part of speech 
implies a different word." Can you produce, or cite, the conversation 
you mentioned in which Okrand talks about whether different parts of 
speech are the same word or not?


On 2/18/2016 5:02 PM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv wrote:
> In the word list of TKD he lists all identical words of different parts
> of speech as separate entries in the Klingon->English side. When I look
> up “stamp” in my Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has one listing that says
> “Stamp v. & n….” That suggests one word used two ways.
>
> I suspect that his vague wording had less to do with waffling over
> whether or not one word can be used as a noun or verb (as is so common
> in English) as it is that he wanted to leave himself wiggle room in case
> he screws up and uses a word the wrong way in canon, so he can declare
> any alternate part of speech use of a word by him a canon example of a
> new word, without letting the rest of us do that whenever we like.
>
> In the end, neither declaration is earth-shaking. For me, it’s simple. A
> different part of speech implies a different word. You can say that they
> have “the same meaning”, but if they are not the same part of speech, I
> think that implies that they don’t really have quite the same meaning.
>
> If they did, then the concept of “part of speech” would become
> meaningless, since by your argument, it has nothing to do with meaning.
>
> pItlh
> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>
>
>
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 4:32 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name
>> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/18/2016 4:17 PM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv 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.
>>
>> I know he's said something like this, but did he say that pairs like
>> {bach} "shoot" and {bach} "shot" are always separate words, or did he
>> say you simply can't assume they're the same word? Where did he make
>> this statement?
>>
>> In TKD we have "In Klingon, there are many instances of nouns and
>> verbs being identical in form (e.g., ta’ accomplishment, accomplish).
>> It is not known if all verbs can be used as nouns..." This uncertainty
>> suggests that it's at least possible that the two forms are in fact
>> the same word used in different ways.
>>
>> Besides, lacking etymologies and written forms, what exactly does it
>> mean to say that they're NOT the same word?
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Alternatively, all electrons are identical to each other, and
>> indistinguishable, and thus completely interchangeable. This has
>> important implications in particle physics:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles>
>>
>> If you cannot tell me how the two words' derivations differ from each
>> other, or how their written forms came to be about, or anything that
>> would distinguish them from each other aside from being a noun or
>> verb, then arguing that they're not the same word has no meaning.
>>
>> In other words, what difference does it make if I claim that the
>> single word {bach} can be used as a noun to mean "shot" or as a verb
>> to mean "shoot"?
>>
>> --
>> SuStel
>> http://trimboli.name
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>




-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name