tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 13 06:42:22 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Quick question
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: RE: Quick question
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 09:13:52 EST
> ... Basically I'm wondering if
> some of the words in
> the dictionary really have suffixes or just appear to.
SuStel writes:
>The answer is: we're not sure. Except possibly for the words {ja'chuq} and
>{lo'laH}, I'd say that the words listed with suffixes are just that: suffixes
>added by Okrand to demonstrate how they work...
I'd also have to classify {roSHa'moH} as uncertain. It *looks* like
this implies a root verb {?roS} meaning approximately "be able to move",
but no such verb appears in the vocabulary.
Well, we do have {roS} "lick" from Power Klingon...but I'm pretty sure
that "paralyze" and "cause to unlick" aren't meant to be the same idea.
I can't be sure, though; it could be an idiom the way {boch ghIchlIj}
and {qoghwIj vIteqpu'} are. But I think it's at least as likely that
there are two verbs spelled {roS}, the transitive "lick" and the (as
yet unknown) stative "be mobile". We have {chu'}, {pup}, {Huj}, etc.
as precedent.
The other two alternatives are that there is a verb {?roSHa'} meaning
"be paralyzed" that only *looks* like {?roS} + {-Ha'}, or that the
whole {roSHa'moH} is a verb that just looks like it has suffixes. I'm
going to try to avoid the issue by not using "paralyze" with any type
1-4 verb suffixes until we know (or decide) what's really going on.
-- ghunchu'wI'