tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 29 07:51:49 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Much ado
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Much ado
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:51:06 -0500
At 03:47 PM 4/28/98 -0700, pagh wrote:
>{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.
>
Huh! Well, there you have it. I'd totally forgotten that little
point (if I ever knew it in the first place!).
>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}.
>
I think it's stretching the point to call {tuv} an activity; I do
think of it as a state. Unfortunately, this means I misused {tuv}
in my {tlhoraQ puqloDpu'} story.
>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.
>
{yIjot'eghchoHmoH} ? (I just can't think of a state as an activity,
not even _taking on_ that state!)
>As Qov noted, it should be {pe-} rather than {yI-} in any case.
>
bIlugh.
--ter'eS
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711