tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 27 07:23:40 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {ghung} and {'oj} as stative verbs?
At 03:29 AM Monday 2/27/2006, Philip Newton wrote:
> > {ghung} and {'oj} appear to be intransitive verbs.
lay'tel SIvten:
>Since {ghung} is 'be hungry' and {'oj} is 'be thirsty', I don't think there
>is any doubt about it. They are stative verbs and can be used adjectivally.
{ghung} in canon:
jIghung
I'm hungry. CK & PK
wa'Hu' jIghung
Yesterday I was hungry. CK
jIghungqu'
I am very hungry.
jIghung je
I am also hungry. PK
ghung; qagh rur
hungry as gagh. KGT
SoSoy jIghung
Mommy, I'm hungry. KGT
qagh largh SuvwI' ghung. Sum qagh 'e' Sov.
The hungry warrior smells the gagh. He/she knows the gagh is nearby. (HQ
12/1998)
SuvwI' ghung law' qagh ghung rap
the warrior is as hungry as gagh (HQ 13.1:10)
{'oj} in canon:
ma'oj
We're thirsty. CK
DaHjaj jI'oj
Today I am thirsty. CK
jI'oj
I am thirsty. PK
jI'oj je
I am also thirsty. PK
'oj; bomwI' rur
thirsty as a singer (KGT 129-30)
> > What I'm wondering is whether they can be stative verbs and, hence,
> > can be used like adjectives -- after all, they do describe a state. So
> > I'm wondering whether {SuvwI' ghung} would be grammatically correct
> > and would mean "the hungry warrior". Or {'Iwghargh 'oj Sop tlhIngan
> > ghung} for "the hungry Klingon eats the thirsty bloodworm".
Absolutely. Although most of our examples are variants of "I am
hungry/thirsty", look again at the example from HolQeD 12/1998 for the very
phrase you want:
qagh largh SuvwI' ghung.
The hungry warrior smells the gagh.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons