tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 21 21:02:21 2011

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: nom qetwI'

lojmIt tI'wI'nuv ([email protected])



For me, the issue relates to the boundaries limiting the reach of the suffix {-wI'}. A suffix like {-meH} or {-mo'} or {-bogh} can drag adverbials along for the ride because they define clauses. {-wI'} doesn't form a clause. It just nominalizes a verb. It doesn't nominalize a whole clause. Just a word. 

lojmIt tI'wI' 



Sent from my iPod

On Jan 21, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Lieven Litaer <[email protected]> wrote:

> all of your advices are really nice, but I did not intend to stick to 
> this {nom qetbogh loD}.
> 
> I thought about an adjectivial use of an adverb. I know, this sounds 
> strange. Perhaps it's a concept that nobody thought of, or it just 
> doesn't work... ?
> 
> Here some examples, that might or might not work:
> 
> {nom qetwI' SoH}
> "you are a quick runner"
> 
> {tlhoy SopwI' ghaH}
> "he's a too-much-eater"
> 
> {not jeghwI'}
> "a never surrenderer"
> 
> {pe'vIl tlhutlhwI'}
> "forcefully drinker"
> 
> Do all of these just work in the pattern
> {adverb verb-bogh noun}?
> 
> Quvar
> aka
>   Lieven.
> 
> 
> 






Back to archive top level