tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 17 04:36:29 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
this'n'that
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: this'n'that
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 17:34:56 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Creede Lambard's message of Wed, 16 Feb 1994 18:08:42 -0800 <[email protected]>
>From: [email protected] (Creede Lambard)
>Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 18:08:42 -0800
>Content-Length: 411
>I'm comfortable with the idea that, in general, intransitive verbs
>can be used as adjectives, but I know I'll get discussion on it.
>~mark in particular objected to my translating "butterfly" as
>"ghargh joq" even though I argued that "joq" could mean "be
>fluttering." I suppose it would be a very Klingon thing to get
>into fist fights over this, but I'll back off and watch the
>discussion some more.
I objected to your wording of "butterfly" as "?joqghargh" (not "ghargh joq")
not because you were using the verb adjectivally (you weren't), but (a)
because you were using it as part of a compound, and we don't have evidence
for verb-noun compounds (b) I didn't see how a wave-worm was a butterfly,
and also somewhat because of (c): I didn't think you gained anything by
trying to express the precise species of critter.
Could "joq" be used adjectivally? Unless Okrand meant that all verbs can,
my instincts say "no." It doesn't indicate a "state or a quality", even
though *any* verb can be expressed in English as "be X-ing". Remind me to
mention Modern Welsh, which expresses *all* its present tense by using
verb-nouns and conjugated forms of "to be". Come to think of it, so does
much of English.
>-- Creede
~mark