tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 03 16:21:44 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 16:21:44 -0400 (EDT)
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> I wrote:
> [{-wI'} is just another Type 9 suffix, applying to entire sentences]
> >I'm very proud of this argument, but I'm willing to listen to criticism.
Gee. I guess I let that one slip by. I'd argue with it only
slightly.
Specifically, it has been noted that a verb with a prefix on it
and {-wI'} at the end would be HIGHLY marked. It would sound
VERY strange to a Klingon, according to Okrand. It doesn't
really work with adverbials or other chuvmey that might modify
a sentence. It doesn't really work with nouns acting as subject
or object of the verb.
It really works with verbs. That's pretty much that. You can
have other non-Type 9 suffixes on the verbs, so the verb
otherwise does behave as it would IN a complete sentence, and
well affixed verbs can act as complete sentences, but complete
sentences can and often do contain chuvmey and nouns, while the
verb with {-wI'} is a single word that becomes a noun and as
such cannot be attached to adverbials or any other kind of word
except in its relationship as a noun.
If I refer to a {HIq tlhutlhqa'taHwI'} (one who repeatedly and
continuously drinks liquor), what I am REALLY saying is a
NOUN-NOUN construction. It is not the sentence {HIq
tlhutlhqa'taH} with {-wI'} tagged on the end. If you doubt
that, try adding {-wI'} to pIj HIq tlhutlh. It doesn't work.
{pIj} needs a verb acting as a verb, and you'll nip that in the
bud when you add {-wI'} to {tlhutlh}.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |