tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 09 11:41:40 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: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 11:41:40 -0400 (EDT)
According to Alan Anderson:
>
...
> You misrepresent my position. Perhaps you do not completely understand it.
> I am NOT trying to stick objects or adverbials on a word after it has been
> nominalized with {-wI'}. I am trying to apply {-wI'} to a sentence which
> already includes an object.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
It is not that I misunderstand or misrepresent your argument.
It is that I reject it. My point is that {-wI'} is not your
average Type 9 suffix. It does not apply to sentences or
clauses. It applies to words, one word at a time. You place it
on a verb and that verb becomes a noun. It functions so much
like a noun that it can even take noun suffixes after the
{-wI'}. Unlike verbs with most other Type 9 suffixes, the verb
is not placed in a position where it can be recognized as a
clause. It is placed in the sentence just like the noun it has
become.
It becomes a noun before the noun suffixes are applied. It also
becomes a noun before any other word is related to it. That's
why you can't slide objects and adverbials into a clause before
adding {-wI'} to the verb. A verb with {-wI'} on it is not a
verb and can't have any of the words grammatically attached to
a verb in a clause attached to it because the only words that
can associate themselves with a verb with {-wI'} are words that
normally associate themselves with nouns.
You are trying treat a nominalizing suffix as if it were like
{-bogh}. The difference is that a verb with {-bogh} by
necessity HAS to have a subject or object to act as its head
noun. The relative clause then grammatically behaves like a
single noun. The relative clause modifies that noun. You expect
there to be a head noun. The grammatical structure sets you up
to know what options are available to you for all the words
near the verb with {-bogh}.
There is a whole section of TKD dedicated to explaining this.
It deserves a whole section because without the explanation,
decyphering a relative clause would be impossible.
There is no such section on {-wI'} because {-wI'} (and {-ghach}
for that matter) are nominalizers. They have nothing to do with
clauses. They transform a verb WITH NO OTHER ASSOCIATED WORDS
FORMING ANY KIND OF CLAUSE into a noun. Begin with no prefix,
possibly add non-Type 9 suffixes, add {-wI'} and then treat the
word like you would any normal noun. That's the process of
using {-wI'}. Do anything else with it and you are creating a
dialect which a Klingon would not understand.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |