tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 19 15:39:19 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Quotes
- From: "Adrian (HurghwI')" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Quotes
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:40:30 -0600
At 09:02 AM 11/19/96 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> HoSmaj ghurmoH nuHoHbe'wI'.
>>
>> Do we know for sure that a verb can't take a pronominal prefix and {-wI'}
>at the
>> same time?
>
>I don't think we have any evidence that shows that we *can*, but there's
>also no rule that says we *can't*. But I tend to avoid this construction.
> It's like the difference between "my killer" and "the me-killer".
>
> muHoHwI' "me-killer"
> HoHwI'wI' "my killer"
This brings up an interesting idea. If we could use prefixes with {-wI'},
could we use prefixes which take a subject other than he/she/it? In most
cases this would lead to nonsense, but certain verbs might be able to do
this. Take {jatlh}, for example. The common use of {jatlh} is:
1. Use {-vaD}, as in {SoHvaD jIjatlh} - "I speak to/for you."
2. Treat {jatlh} as transitive, and use a suffix like I-you, as in {qajatlh}.
Now, is it feasible that one could use {qajatlhwI'}? It seems to me that
this is the same, basically, as {Doch qajatlhbogh}. "I-you speaker" and
"Thing which I speak you." Just an idea.
>The first one emphasizes the individual, the second the action. Here's
>another example. We go to the opera, and I ask you what you though of the
>tenor. Would you say "I liked him singing" or "I liked his singing"? The
>first is like using a prefix on the verb, and the second like using the
>normal possessive constructions. (Though the gerund examples are harder to
>show what I mean clearly in Klingon). We're not talking about the
>individual, we're talking about the action.
>
>So, I've always disliked prefixes on /-wI'/'d verbs.
>
>> T'Lark
>
>--Holtej
>Stardate 96886.26
>
>
|
|
| \ HurghwI'
.-| |-. vogh vIghoSchugh, pa' SoH
/ / \ \ [email protected]
|_,\ / | http://www.jwp.bc.ca/peregrine
/ \\ //\_|__
| ___\\// /
|/ \ `----'
`-.__.-`