tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 28 15:35:14 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Much ado
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Much ado
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 15:28:52 -0700
SuStelvaD jang ter'eS:
>At 01:55 PM 4/28/98 -0700, SuStel wrote:
>>From: Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen <[email protected]>
>>
>>
>>>All I can say is, "yItuv."
>>
>>You mean, {yItuv'eghmoH}.
>>
>
>I see what you are driving at: "cause someone to be patient and
>have that someone be yourself", but is this necessary? I think
>you are implying that an imperative prefix can't command someone
>to take on a quality, but I don't see the problem. We do have the
>canon {petaD}, which does exactly that: commands the listeners to
>take on a state. Are there any other canon examples of imperatives
>with descriptive verbs?
{yItaD}/{petaD} is an idiom, and the usage is described as "peculiar,
though not really ungramatical". Here's the text about {-'eghmoH}:
"Generally, when a verb describing a state of being is used in the
imperative form, the suffixes {-'egh} and {-moH} are used as well". So
SuStel was right.
That said, it could be argued that {tuv} is really more of an activity
than a state, so {yItuv} or {petuv} would at least be less peculiar than
{yItuj}, for example. It may be my English bias, but I cannot really
object to {yItuv}, and would probably use it in conversation. For most
other stative verbs, I would most definitely use {-'eghmoH}.
As an added speculation, when using an imperative with a state, I
sometimes use {-choH}, which sort of turns the state into an activity.
{yIjot} (be still) is just weird to my ear, but {yIjotchoH} (become
still) seems quite natural.
As Qov noted, it should be {pe-} rather than {yI-} in any case.
pagh