tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 26 06:25:03 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: noun suffixes on adj?
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: noun suffixes on adj?
- Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:40:28 -0500
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Steven Boozer
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> K'ryntes wrote:
>> : And why is Daq on tIn in the first place? You aren't in "big" you're in
>> : "city".
>
>Consider this:
>
>1. You don't want a lot of verb suffixes on a verb while it is
>being used as an adjective. {-qu'} is an exception because it
>adds meaning sometimes to adjectives. Meanwhile, a lot of the
>suffixes would do really weird things to the meaning of an
>adjective, since they deal with subjects and objects (like
>{-lu'} or {-moH} and while acting as an adjective, verbs don't
>deal with subjects or objects. There were a couple of other
>suffixes besides {-qu'} that could work here, and we DO have the
>example of {-be'} being used on the audiotape Conversational
>Klingon in the counting exercise where we get: {wa'maH yIHmey
>lI'be'}. So, we know we can use {-qu'} and {-be'} and a lot of
>us would LIKE to be able to use {-Ha'}, but most other verb
>suffixes would be absurd to use on verbs while they act as
>adjectives.
Are my many posts on this topic being blasted into oblivion? {-Ha'} IS
allowed: it is used in KGT, page 150, on {Duj ngaDHa'}. That the phrase is
used as slang is irrelevant, since we are given the literal meaning, and are
never told that it is ungrammatical.
So far, the rule seems to be that you may add any ROVER to an
adjectivally-acting verb (or at least, a single rover, though I find it hard
to believe that {lI'be'} would be allowed and not {lI'be'qu'}).
SuStel
Stardate 98817.3