tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 10 10:34:46 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TKD 4.4.
In a message dated 96-03-09 18:22:57 EST, William Martin writes:
>> {jupwI' Do'Ha' Heghmo' jISot}
>
>I like this, though some may dislike the word order, wedging an
>adjectival into the middle of a noun-noun construction. Still,
>it may work (provided that you've reversed yourself on arguing
>against the use of {-Ha'} on an adjectival...
>
>> 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}.
>
>
I personally have no trouble with an Adjective following the Noun it
modifies, even when that Noun is Genitive. I have long felt, without much
support on this listserv, that Klingon Stative Verbs acting as Adjectives
(which English calls them, Klingon does not even have Adjectives per se),
that *Adjectives* are very much like Noun 2s of the Noun-Noun construction.
I am not saying that they have lost their identity as Stative Verbs (i.e.
Adjectives) modifing a Noun by following it; I am merely saying that they
nicely occupy the second position of a Noun-noun construction. Therefore,
in my humble opinion, they are just one more element in a longer noun-noun
construction.
In conclusion, I see {puq mach} as being a little like: "the smallness of
the child." Now, before this gets blown all out of proportion, I do NOT
claim to be changing {mach} into a noun; it is still a Stative Verb meaning
"small." Thus, we get "the small child," just as in English when we use an
Adjective to modify a Noun. But, in Klingon, the Stative Verb merely ACTS as
a Noun 2.
peHruS