tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 19 07:11:53 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Suffixes (Was: <<tlhIngan 'o' Humghach>>vetlh)
- From: [email protected] (The Songbringer -- Marnen to the common folk)
- Subject: Re: Suffixes (Was: <<tlhIngan 'o' Humghach>>vetlh)
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 14:55:00 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Nov 15, 93 9:51 am
Doch tlha' ghitlhta' ~mark (maQSolSon):
[...]
: >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?
There is most definitely a canonical example; it is in TKD, in the section on
rovers. In demonstrating the emphatic force of >qu'<, Okrand uses
>piHoHqu'vipbe'<, >piHoHvipqu'be'<, and >piHoHvipbe'qu'.
:
: ~mark
:
:
Qapla' Qichqemwi'vo'.
--
===============================================================================
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | Marnen E.
| |/ \ \ / \ \ / \ \ | |/ \_\ | |/ \ \ / \_\ | |/ \ \ | Laibow-Koser
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |/ | | | | | laibow@brick.
|_| |_| |_| \_\|_| |_| |_| |_| \_\_/ |_| |_| | purchase.edu
| SUNY Purchase
===============================================================================