tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 17 04:47:14 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Suffixes (Was: <<tlhIngan 'o' Humghach>>vetlh)
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Suffixes (Was: <<tlhIngan 'o' Humghach>>vetlh)
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 16:17:51 EST
...
> >1: Is it possible to use the same rover *twice* in two different places
> >on the same verb? My instincts (again) say that this is incorrect, and it
> >should hardly ever be needed, but I have encountered a few times where
> >this was exactly what I was trying to do. I got around it by re-wording
> >the sentence entirely.
>
> DujlIj Qoch DujwIj'e'. It's in my mind that this kind of double-usage is
> definitely part of rover-ness, just like being able to modify a verb in
> more than one way depending on position. I would certainly say
> {jIQuchbe'laHbe'} for "I cannot agree", since "-be'" is permitted in any
> position and is needed in both. We haven't forbidden the use of two rovers
> on the same verb (anyone have a canonical example of a verb with two
> rovers? I can't think of any at the moment); why should it matter if the
> two rovers happen to be the same one?
I completely agree in principal that rovers should be repeatable within
a word, though for this particular example, I would far prefer jIQuchnISqu'.
It just seems much more direct, and therefore less likely to start a knife
fight.
-- charghwI'