tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 09 13:49:35 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: TKD 4.4.



David Barron writes:
>I am trying to clear up an ambiguity in TKD 4.4.
>The section seems to indicate that ONLY  the suffix {-qu'} can
>be used to modify a stative verb that is acting as an
>adjective.

What's ambiguous about it?  First it says "The rover {-qu} /emphatic/
(section 4.3) may follow verbs functioning adjectivally."  This tells
us that {-qu'} is permitted.  Later, when discussing the use of Type 5
noun suffixes along with adjectival verbs, it says "...the verb...when
used to modify the noun in this way, can have no other suffix except
the rover {-qu'} /emphatic/."  This tells us that *only* {-qu'} is
permitted if there's a Type 5 noun suffix.  This is absolutely clear
and unambiguous.

It doesn't quite answer the question of whether other suffixes may be
used if there *isn't* a Type 5 noun suffix (it says "no *other* suffix"
which implies that it's not talking about the general case).  However,
there are examples that tell us at least *some* verb suffixes are okay.
I think PK says approximately {wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'} for "ten useless
tribbles."

>Example:
>I am distressed because of my friends unfortunate death.
>{jISot jupwI' Hegh Do'Ha'mo'}

By the rules given in TKD 4.4, this is not permitted.

>Or should it be
>{jISot jupwI' Heghmo' Do'Ha'} ?

No, this doesn't follow the rules either.  Basically, it seems we don't
have a way to say "unfortunate death" at all.

But your original meaning is a little unclear.  Do you really mean the
"death" is unfortunate?  Try referring to your unfortunate *friend*.

{jupwI' Do'Ha' Heghmo' jISot}

Better yet, put the {-mo'} on a verb.  Actions cause events more often
than mere things cause events.

{Heghpu'mo' jupwI' Do'Ha' jISot} or {Do'Ha' Heghpu'mo' jupwI' jISot}.

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj




Back to archive top level