tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 02 05:03:23 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: prepared
- From: [email protected] (Bill Willmerdinger)
- Subject: RE: KLBC: prepared
- Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 13:18:08
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <noun> <stative verb>Ha'
> There is no canon for this. In TKD, Okrand only allows the use
> of {-qu'} as the only verbal suffix allowed on a stative verb
> while it is being used adjectivally. Meanwhile, he violates this
> rule on CK by using {-be'} in {wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'}.
> Following from this, {-Ha'} is a logical candidate for use on an
> adjectival verb, but this has not been confirmed anywhere in
> canon that I know of.
Then, we're back to the argument regarding whether an explicitly given entry
in TKD, which is obviously <verb>+<suffix>, is a separate word. {wa'maH
tlhIngan QuchHa'} is obviously legit - {QuchHa'} has it's own entry "be
unhappy". Is {QuchHa'} a separate word or {Quch} plus {-Ha'} used
adjectivally?
Wishlist time....
Qob la' (tlh.w.D. quttaj ra'wI')
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD qhojwI'