tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 29 22:56:32 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Much ado
- From: WestphalWz <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Much ado
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:56:08 EDT
In a message dated 98-04-28 18:48:17 EDT, pagh writes:
<< {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.
>>
Because {tuv} is glossed as "be patient," I suspect it is a stative verb. We
seem to have agreed to follow the glosses and say that those which begin with
"be..." are stative verbs. So, I do not see that {tuv} is a verb of activity.
I have discovered two instances of canon imperatives of stative verbs:
ytamchoH and petaD. We are told that {petaD} is weird grammatically, and we
are told that addition of {-'eghmoH} is proper; I submit that the correct
form is {yItuvchoH} OR {yItuv'eghmoH}.
Finally, I believe that Dr. Schoen was replying to only the one person having
asked when Much Ado About Nothing might be published. This means he was
correct in using the singular imperative form. {petuvchoH} was not necessary.
{yItuvchoH} would have been okay.
peHruS