tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 23 12:17:43 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: noun suffixes on adj?
K'ryntes wrote:
: TKD p. 50 has a type 5 noun suffix on a verb.
:
: veng tInqu'Daq
:
: Now, I realize the verb is acting as an adjective but I find this confusing.
: Is this just an exception or do all adj take noun suffixes such as...
:
: veng tInqu'wIjDaq (in my very big city)
:
: And why is Daq on tIn in the first place? You aren't in "big" you're in
: "city".
:
: If this is just one exception, that if you use a verb to modify a noun and
you
: want to say you are to, in, at, or on that noun then put Daq after the
: verb....fine. But does it include all noun suffixes or all type 5 noun
: suffixes or just Daq?
Okrand states the rule in TKD p.50:
If a Type 5 noun suffix is used (section 3.3.5), it follows the verb,
which, when used to modify the noun in this way, can have no other
suffix except the rover {-qu'} "emphatic". The Type 5 noun suffix
follows {-qu'} ... {veng tInqu'Daq} "in the very big city."
He seems to mean all Type 5 noun suffixes (-Daq, -mo', -vaD, -vo', -'e')
though, except for the example in TKD, I could find no other examples with one
used with {-qu'} on a stative verb modifying a noun in this fashion.
I think this was one of those counter-intuitive little rules Okrand purposely
built into the language to make it seem more "natural" -- like the annoying
rule about not using Type 7 aspect suffixes on the second verb in a complex
sentence with {'e'} and {net}. After all, he was not designing a perfectly
regular, logically consistent language, but a natural-feeling one, which is
something many people tend to forget. If you've ever studied natural
languages, you know that they are full of little exceptions to the rules, or
rules and constructions that are inconsistent with other rules and
constructions -- at least it seems so to speakers of other languages. You
just
have to accept them as the way the language works and learn them.
Purely as a learner's trick to remember the rule, consider {veng tIn} and
{veng
tInqu'} as noun phrases, with the noun suffix {-Daq} tacked on the end:
(veng tInq)Daq
(veng tInqu')Daq
Other examples of {-Daq} on "noun phrases", which I've marked:
(lojmIt poS)Daq Daq pagh.
No one eavesdrops at an open door. PK
wa' (Dol nIv)Daq matay'DI' maQap
We succeed together in a greater whole. TKW
(yo' qIj)Daq vavpu'ma' DImuv
we ... join our fathers in the Black Fleet (Anthem)
(qep'a' wejDIch)Daq jatlhtaH tlhIngan Hol HaDwI'pu'. (Expert Forum BBS,
11/96)
Although {wejDIch} isn't "quality" or "stative verb", the pattern seems to be
the same.
If this works, then I imagine you could say {veng tInqu'wIjDaq} instead of
{vengwIj tInqu'Daq} for "in my very big city", though I couldn't find an
example either way. Can anyone else think of one?
BTW: Note that "no other suffix except the rover {-qu'}" means you cannot say
*{veng tInchu'Daq}, *{veng tInbejDaq}, *{veng tInbe'Daq}, etc. Stative verbs
formed with {-Ha'} *might* be an exception, however -- ?{veng quvHa'Daq} "in
the dishonored city", ?{veng QuchHa'Daq} "in the unhappy city", etc. -- though
I could find no examples of this pattern either. We need to ask Maltz.
_________________________________________________________________________
Voragh "Grammatici certant et adhuc sub judice
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons lis est." Horace (Ars Poetica)