tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 22:53:19 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: qay'?
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: qay'?
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 97 05:49:39 UT
----------
From: [email protected] on behalf of Q'ISt'ova (Eliseo d'Annunzio, Esq.)
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 1997 9:37 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: KLBC: qay'?
> > > Can "qay'" be used adjectivally? "Problematic" or something > like
that?
> >
> > Good question. Since it is listed as a "to be" type verb, I
> > would expect that it could be used as such, though I'd have a
> > little trouble translating it smoothly into English.
> > "Problematic" would probably be the polite way to translate it,
>
> I guess the only problem is to find out whether we can string a verb with
> qay, eg. "Qongqay" for say "sleepily".
What are you talking about?
> Though I feel we may have to put a
> restriction on how viable this logic is. Verbs like "qip" (to hit) and
> "legh" (to see) would not follow the same run of logic, else we'd end up
> with:
>
> qipqay (hittingly, which does not make sense...)
> leghqay (seeingly, which also does not make sense...)
Are we talking about the same thing? The verb {qay'} means "be a problem."
If I say {jIqay'}, it means "I am a problem." If I say {qay' HeghDaj}, it
means "his death is a problem." What has this got to do with illegal verb
compounds?
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97303.9