tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 12 06:03:20 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: HolQeD 3.4. -wI'
{Again, offering the counterpoint with Mr Proechel unable to...}
{sorry, the attributions were lost....}
> >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!
Well, they've been sitting there for 10 years now in TKD... What's the
big hooey about it? It isn't Mr Proechel's fault. Who else had
mentioned the apparent noun+>-wI'< forms much till now?
> >But I do agree that -wI' can go on *any* verb... even "stative" verbs.
> SO does this mean that langwI' can mean "the thin man"?
One would think so. >puj< --> >pujwI'< seems to confirm that any
intransitive "to be X" verb in >tlhIngan< is ">-wI'<-able".
> And the only positive argument for this in TKD is the list of suffixes in the
> back of the book.
Not exactly, since "one who does" is a form that is rather English in
nature. "one who is" is a more universal Terran description. Actually a
more apt method would have been to state it as "one who Vs" or even more
simply as "one who..." , since Klingon doesn't have an emphatic.... (I
ought say, "since Klingon has no emphatic.... :-)
> >~mark
> David Barron
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?"