tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 21 10:39:24 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SuvwI' quvHa'
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: SuvwI' quvHa'
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:39:22 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromRobyn Stewart on Sun, 20 Oct 1996 10:05:20 -0700)
>Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 10:05:20 -0700
>From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
>qatlh muj mu'tlheghvam? :
>
> SuvwI' quvHa' wIlegh
mujbe'.
>wotvaD mojaqvetlh wIlo' net tuchlaw'. "If a Type 5 noun suffix is used, it
>follows the verb, which, when used to modify the noun in this way
>[adjectively] can have no other suffix except the rover qu'." (TKD p. 50)
>
>pIj DIp tlha'bogh wot'e' vIlo'taHvIS, -be' -Ha' je vIlo' jIH. jImujlaw'.
>not QaghHeyvammo' vIlughmoHlu'pu'. Qaghvam HIvlu' not 'e' vIlegh. pabvam
>lo'law' nuv law'. Okrandvo' chutvam tlhochbogh chovnatlh'e' wIghaj'a'?
>
>SKI: TKD seems to forbid even -Ha' and -be' from appearing on verbs used
>adjectivally. Is there canon to contradict this rule?
HIja'. "CK"Daq tu'lu'. "wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'" ja' "Okrand."
DIp tlha'chugh wot, wotDaq "-Ha'" "-be'" ghap (qoj??) lanlu' 'e' vIchaw'
jIH. (chaw''a' "Okrand"? chaw'law'.)
~mark