tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 09 03:36:44 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Noun-Noun Construction

> >     I think there is a pretty strong case for using it adjectivally, so
> >long
> >as it is used without the Type 5 noun suffix.
> >
> >charghwI'
> Since when do we consider something an adjectival only if it tacks on a
> type
> 5 suffix. 

     You've completely missed my point. The word was WITHOUT. TKD says that
you cannot use any suffix except {-qu'} on a verb being used adjectivally IF
THE VERB HAS A TYPE 5 NOUN SUFFIX, which it gets if it follows a noun that
would logically receive that Type 5 suffix.

> Sure, if you do that, the fact that it is an adjectival will be
> unquestionable, but we shouldn't say "Now remember, we think that {HeghmoH}
> might be used as an adjectival, but if you use it that way, be sure to tack
> on some type 5 suffix, so we know that's how you're using it." 

     Excuse me, but I think you are reading this part of my posts about as
accurately as you've been reading a lot of other things I've written lately,
which does not serve communication very well.

> NO! My
> assumption is that if you have to add some petty marker to clarify that 
> it's
> an adjective, then it might as well not even be an adjective.

     My, but we continue with our completely misinterpreted argument...

> Elsewhere in TKD, and on the tapes, there is the strong implication that
> only suffixes that can be tacked onto adjectivals are rovers like {-qu'} or
> {-be'} or {-Ha'} (tho probably not {-Qo'}, mainly for semantic reasons, tho
> the case is easily debated).
> Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos

     Umm. You might want to just calm down and read TKD on adjectivals


Back to archive top level