tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 09 08:22:25 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qaSmoH
lay'tel SIvten:
>Okay, but how then "I will make you open your blouse"? We can't add {-moH}
>to {poSmoH}, and we don't have a word for "to cause", just the suffix {-moH}.
>
> ({yIvbeHlIj DapoSmoH; 'e' vIqaSmoH}?)
Voragh:
> > Instead of the unattested *{qaSmoH} "make (something) happen", use {raD}
> > "force, compel":
> >
> > yIvbeHlIj DapoSmoH 'e' vIraD.
> > I will make you open your blouse.
lay'tel SIvten:
>Why call this unattested?
Because it's a statement of fact. {qaS} has only appeared without any
suffix or with the suffixes {-taH}/{-taHvIS}, {-DI'} or {-choH}. Since
{qaS} is one of our more common verbs, the fact that the form *{qaSmoH} is
unattested in canon may be significant.
>That makes it sound invalid.
To you, perhaps. I merely stated the results of my search.
>Most of the derivative words used are "unattested", meaning they've never
>been used in canon, but
>that doesn't make them invalid or incorrect.
Nor does it make them valid or correct.
Although possible in theory, in practice every verb does not take every
suffix. Some combinations either make no logical sense or are replaced by
other verbs or idioms. This is true of all languages. The theoretical
combination may well be understood by a native speaker (after a moment's
thought) but, for some reason, is never used. In fact, the use of such
unusual forms is one way of identifying a non-native speaker.
>And {raD} doesn't capture the sense I had in mind.
Really? What's the difference between "I will make you open your blouse"
and "I will compel you to open your blouse"?
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons