tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 17 18:14:09 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: DaH vay' vIlarghlaH (was RE: mu'tlheghmey javDIch vImugh)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: DaH vay' vIlarghlaH (was RE: mu'tlheghmey javDIch vImugh)
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 02:13:04 UT
December 17, 1996 3:58 PM, jatlh HurghwI':
> >"You smell like a targh."
> >jaSHa' He' SoH targh je.
> I thought putting verb suffixes on adverbs was illegal.
> Is it?
Mostly, yes. In HolQeD 4:4, Okrand announces that some adverbials may be able
to take the suffix {-Ha'} to negate it. {batlhHa'} is completely legal this
way, as is {Do'Ha'}.
Not all adverbials can take {-Ha'}. {vaj} cannot (Maltz didn't like it).
So far, no other adverbials have been shown to be "negate-able." It's
possible that others can be.
My guess is that any adverbial which can be reversed usefully would be able to
take {-Ha'}. I have no problem understanding {jaSHa'}. I would not, for
example, expect *{reHHa'}, since it would seem to mean {not}. One word I'd
*love* confirmation of is *{ghaytanHa'}.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96964.0