tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 21 18:44:12 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "Titanic" chov SuSvaj
ja' SuSvaj:
>In retrospect, I should have simply left *je* out and writen"
>
> bIQ'a' Duj tInqu', Do'Ha'qu' 'oH "Titanic"'e'.
No, that's not like any of the examples we've seen. Nowhere in canon do
we find two "adjectives" following a noun without a conjunction. Indeed,
KGT tells us that adjectival constructions aren't possible with "lengthier"
formations, apparently referring to multiple verbs of quality. On page 82
of KGT, {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh} "The tea that is {SuD} and light" is
used as an example of how it must be said. There's another example that
I can never find...
>>tamDI' {chuch'ay''a' ngeQ Duj} wIghaj
>
>That certainly works, but I don't see why either the ship, or the iceberg
>could not be thought of as a "hitting implement." Unless the verb *qIp*
>implies an intent to hit, rather than hitting by accident. vuDmey???
I do think that {qIp} implies an intentional action. It isn't the hammer
that strikes the nail in this way, but the person wielding the hammer.