tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 09 08:29:55 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Rovers & >-Ha'< suggestion
- From: David E G Sturm <[email protected]>
- Subject: Rovers & >-Ha'< suggestion
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 11:29:51 -0500 (EST)
Something that had been the back of my head for a long time....
Since >-Ha'< doesn't really rove, I once wrote it into my list as being a
"Type 0 Suffix".... Since we can't exactly remap Types 1-9 to 2-10, I
think it's a more elegant way of describing it; and when I taught my
first Klingon class in '91, this is the way we described it then.
Of course, I know that TKD states on p48, that "It is not known why
Klingon grammarians insist on calling it a rover. It was felt best not
to argue with Klingon tradition, however, so -Ha' is here classified as a
rover."
Which makes me wonder, in the other discussion, the KLBC student tried
affixing -Ha' after a -neS.... Now, why did Klingon grammarians ever
call it a "rover" in the first place, unless it once roved?
Looking back at the Verb Suffix Cards I printed up then, I noted I also
called >-Qo'< a "Type 8 1/2 Suffix".... (Or 8.5 if you prefer)
Actually, I'm not sure why it shouldn't just be Type 8, except that that
would then preclude having >-neSQo'<....
Of course, I just did this to increase learning and clarify that >-be'<
and >-qu'< were the only real "rovers"..... I wouldn't want to argue
with Klingon tradition.... :-)
Dave.
<[email protected]> >tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh'a'?< "Pardon me, but if I must
David E G Sturm, Laboratory Manager operate in a vacuum, can
Wake Forest University Department of Physics I at least have a little
Box 7261 Reynolda Station, Winston-Salem NC 27109 ether to calm my nerves?"