tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 11 14:15:19 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: HolQeD 3.4. -wI'
>Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 14:31:55 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: [email protected] (David Barron)
>~marc, charghwI',
>I would like your opinion on Prochel's proclaimation that -wI'
>can be added to a verb to mean "one who is" as in HeghwI' "dead man".
>Do you feel this is acceptable tlhIngan Hol?
I actually haven't fully read the article... mostly because I dread the
visceral reaction I'll have when I do (and I hope I can get a proper
response in a letter to Lawrence)... -wI' on nouns indeed!
But I do agree that -wI' can go on *any* verb... even "stative" verbs. I
would be a little unsure about HeghwI' for "dead one"... Glen says "some"
might disagree with him here, and I do: Okrand says that lacking a type 7
verb suffix, the action is neither completed nor ongoing. Thus, "Hegh loD"
means "the man dies"... not that he's dying at this instant... maybe he
dies some time ago. Maybe he dies at some point in the future. Maybe in
general he's subject to death. But a "dead man" is a man who *has died*"
which is perfective, so I'd say Heghpu'wI'.
Oh, and I disagree that -wI' can only be a person too: what about So'wI'?
>tlhIngan Hol: ~markDaq charghwI'Daq, chay' Qap "-wI'"?
>wot HochvaD -wI' chellaH vay'?
^-'a'
'e' vIHar. HISlaH.
~mark