tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 02 06:12:46 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: ja'chuq explained (was: chetvI' yIHuvmoH)
On Thu, 1 Oct 1998 14:16:01 -0700 (PDT) "Andeen, Eric"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> lab charghwI':
>
> > I'll add to this that so far as I know, Okrand has confirmed
> > (at one of the qep'a'mey, I believe) only ONE case of what
> > appears to possibly be a verb plus suffix actually being a
> > separate verb root: lo'laH.
> >
> > He had to do it. Otherwise, he could never use {lo'laH}
> > adjectivally, since {-laH} is not a suffix you can put on a
> > verb when it is used adjectivally, as in the term "valuable
> > information".
> >
> > De' lo'laH vInobta', qar'a'?
> >
> > In all other cases, unless Okrand reveals something else to us
> > he has not yet revealed, the words which appear to be verbs
> > plus suffixes really are verbs plus suffixes. You can't bend
> > the rules for suffix order if you want to add a lower numbered
> > type of verb suffix. You can't otherwise treat these words as
> > anything different than just verbs with suffixes.
>
> The interesing verb I wonder about is <roSHa'moH> - "paralyze". This
> appears to be <roS> + <-Ha'> + <-moH>, but the meaning makes NO sense.
> <roS> is "lick", and I cannot for the life of me make "cause to unlick"
> into "paralyze". They're both in KGT, btw.
>
> pagh
Remember that it could also mean to "mislick". It could be that
Klingons are particularly susceptible to particular types of
physical stimulation...
Whatever, Okrand did not tell us that {roSHa'} is a separate
word yet, and since {-Ha'} is never preceeded by any suffix, it
doesn't really matter.
charghwI' 'utlh