tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 03 22:47:58 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2

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.

charghwI' writes:
>Gee. I guess I let that one slip by. I'd argue with it only
>slightly.

Hold that thought; I'll refer to it at the end of my note.

>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.

The equivalent phrase is pretty strongly marked in English, too.
"Something which generates power" gets only a LITTLE strange when the
subject is explicitly stated: "Something which it generates power."
Use anything other than "it" for the subject and it becomes something
VERY strange like "Something which you generate power."  {-wI} only
makes sense with a third person singular subject, and that's denoted
with the null prefix.

>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.

WHY doesn't it work with a modifier?  Try {QIt Hergh QaywI'} for
an IV drip, or {pe'vIl HivwI'} for a sledgehammer.  I know, the
dictionary doesn't say it can work this way.  There isn't canon
support for these suggestions.  But all of the other type 9 verb
apply to entire sentences.  Even if {chuvmey} are forbidden, the
point of my argument is that dealing with a specified object on
a verb with {-wI'} can be a better explanation than calling the
phrase a noun-noun construction.

>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.

Is {-wI'} on a complete sentence really as bad as you make it out
to be?  I hope to hear from others regarding this.
{Qanqor bIladtaH'a'?}

>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.

I doubt that.  My argument is precisely the opposite:  it really
IS the sentence {HIq tlhutlhqa'taH} with {-wI'} on the verb.

>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}.

You call this "only slightly" arguing? :-)  I obviously have less
trouble with this than you do.

 -- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level