tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 20 15:13:20 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC double object verbs
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC double object verbs
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 17:40:37 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Garrett Michael Hayes" at Mar 20, 96 12:20:31 pm
According to Garrett Michael Hayes:
>
> On 20 Mar 96 at 11:25, William H. Martin wrote:
>
> > Yes. With a slight modification, I can see a very common
> > example. There is a knock at the door. The Klingon head of
> > household answers. An obvious solicitor for a local charity is
> > on the front porch. {yaHDaq jInobpu'!} SLAM!
>
> Very tiny point. Wouldn't this be <yAhDaq jInobta'>
I definitely considered it. I decided that {-pu'} would be a
better expression of copping an attitude. I did it. It wasn't
an accomplishment. I just did it. It is done and I don't want
or need to do it again. bang vInaghta'. jagh vIcharghta'.
veQ vIqengpu'.
Catch my drift?
Remember that {-pu'} does not imply that there was no intent or
accomplishment. It simply does not make any reference to any
degree of accomplishment. {-ta'} makes a point of expressing
that the completion of the act was intentional and it was an
accomplished goal.
Just like I was trying to express about the absence of Type 2
noun suffixes not offfering information about plurality, {-pu'}
offers no information about the presence or absence of intent.
> Garrett Michael Hayes; Client/Server Labs
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |