tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 09 10:07:24 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: bIQaghbejlI' *yoDtargh*
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: bIQaghbejlI' *yoDtargh*
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 13:07:18 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "William H. Martin" at Feb 8, 95 9:31 am
According to William H. Martin:
> DoS chImlaw'Daq bIQeq.
I wrote this before being reminded on the limits of verbal
suffixes on verbs used adjectivally. While we do not know for
certain that {-law'} is not used in this way, there is the
sense that such suffixes are somehow restricted. TKD seems to
state that only {-qu'} can be used on a verb used adjectivally.
For beginners, {Doq taj} means "the daggar is red" and here
{Doq} is used as a normal intransitive verb. {taj Doq} means,
"the red daggar" and here {Doq} is used adjectivally. You can
usually tell because {Doq} = "be red (among other colors)" is
intransitive, so if it follows a noun, that noun can't be its
object because intransitive verbs don't HAVE objects. It is
then related to the noun acting like an adjective instead of
like a verb.
Anyway, TKD states that only {-qu'} can be optionally added to
a verb used adjectivally, but in Conversational Klingon, Okrand
also used {-be'} in the phrase {wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'} (ten
useless tribbles), so we know that {-be'} can also be used on
adjectivals. Okrand will have to make an explicit statement
about any other verbal suffixes on adjectivals before we can
presume that they are acceptable.
HIvqa' veqlargh.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |