tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 17 19:05:17 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Adjectives WAS RE: KBLS: Storm
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Adjectives WAS RE: KBLS: Storm
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 97 22:23:26 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Neal Schermerhorn wrote:
> what exactly can be used adjectivally?
>
> Clearly, any verb that translates as "be <adjective>" is usable
adjectivally.
Possibly not every verb; there's one in the dictionary somewhere which ends
with {-moH}, which is translated with a "be [something]" (no, I don't remember
what it is, but it's definitely there). *Maybe* it's a distinct verb, *maybe*
it's just a convenient translation.
> Now, what about moD (v) hurry? moDbogh loD = man who hurries is OK if we
mean
> this in a general sense. But what if I want to specify the fact that the man
> I
> am referring to is the one whose present state is that of hurrying? Why not
> say loD muD = hurrying man?
We had a discussion on this a few months ago. What you're describing is a
verb which is "stative," while I would restrict adjectival verbs to
"qualitative" verbs (kudos to ghunchu'wI' for distinguishing this
terminology). Qualitative verbs are also stative verbs, but it's not
necessarily true the other way around.
If you accept this, it then becomes a matter of determing which of the stative
verbs are qualitative. Or of deciding whether Klingon even distinguishes
qualitative verbs from others. {moD} is certainly stative: it describes a
person or thing whose "present state is that of hurrying." Is it qualitative?
Personally, I believe that there IS a distinction made in Klingon. For
example, one of the known proverbs says {qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH
qetbogh loD}. It does NOT say {SIjlaH loD qet}, which would be perfectly
valid under your stative interpretation.
Now, I've found many instances of stative verbs with {bogh} in canon.
Unfortunately, they all have suffixes other than {-qu'} and {-be'}, and so
they cannot be used as examples (because adjectival verbs must have only these
suffixes). (There's also {tojbogh pa'} "holodeck" from the Radio Times
article, but this is a bit vague; {toj} is being used statively, but {toj}
*can* take an object).
Then there are other problem words. The previous conversation started because
of the word {wew}. Some want to use it adjectivally, others say it can't be
done. And what about {wuQ}? Is {ghot wuQ} "a person who has a headache"?
Must it be {wuQbogh ghot}? (Actually, I'd just say {wuQwI'}.) More often
than not, you'll have a {wuQtaHbogh ghot} or a {wuQtaHwI'}.
> Now, I am not saying that all verbs can be used adjectivally. But there are
> surely some that can be which are not so clearly marked. What guidelines
> would
> you set down for correct usage of verbs adjectivally? (That is, besides
TKD's
> "state or quality" (p. 49) direction, which is quite open to interpretation,
> as I hope I have shown.)
We have little else by way of guidelines. Now, I ask you: where has Okrand
used one of these stative yet not qualitative verbs as an adjectival verb (or
in a law'/puS)? When we see one, we'll have more to go on. If we continue
not to see them, that tells us more.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97461.8