<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/22/2019 9:19 AM, Lieven L. Litaer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c23bb74c-cf17-235d-aeb8-722a0ab0298c@gmx.de">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">{ghoj} and
{ghojmoH} only count as one word because the second version <br>
is only a suffixed version of the first. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Add {ghojmoHwI'} to that list.</blockquote>
<p>But are you questioning the "one-wordness" of these words because
<i>learn, teach,</i> and <i>teacher</i> are considered different
words in English (and maybe German), or because of some inherent
reason to do so in Klingon?</p>
<p>In English, we generally consider inflected forms to all be the
same word, but not all affixes. <i>Teach, teaches, taught,
teaching</i> are all the same word in different forms. But <i>teacher,</i>
<i>teachable,</i> <i>teacherly, teachability,</i> <i>unteach, </i>and
<i>teacherage</i> are all considered different words, not to
mention words you can coin on the spot with suffixes like <i>teacheresque,
teacherlike,</i> or <i>teachaholic.</i> And what about clitics,
like <i>teacher's?</i><br>
<i></i></p>
<p>So what makes you decide that <b>-moH</b> and <b>-wI'</b> have
special standing to form new words? Because they appear in <i>The
Klingon Dictionary </i>with their own entries? That wasn't done
because they're considered separate words; that was only done to
make English–Klingon lookups easier: a new student looking for the
word <i>teacher</i> isn't going to look up the word <i>learn</i>
and then add a <b>-moH</b> to it; they're going to look for the
word <i>teach.</i></p>
<p>What about <b>-ghach?</b> Is <b>naDHa'ghach</b> a distinctly
different word than <b>naD? naD</b> is both a noun and a verb;
the only thing the <b>-ghach</b> is doing is adding the <b>-Ha'</b>
sense to the noun that already exists.</p>
<p>What about the type 2 suffixes? Isn't <b>puvvIp </b><i>afraid
to fly</i> a rather different concept than <b>puv</b><i> fly?</i>
Shouldn't it count as a separate word?</p>
<p>Let's not be so certain we know how to count words in Klingon.
When confronted with the question, it would be much better to
clarify that one is talking about the count of word roots, and
that you can add many affixes to form longer words.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>