tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 29 07:22:57 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lut
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: lut
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 10:22:44 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from TPO on Wed, 27Nov 1996 21:03:40 -0800)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 21:03:40 -0800
>From: TPO <[email protected]>
>
>for Kahless the unforgettable, I have used qeylIS lIjlaHHa'
>would putting -laH on the verb make it stative so it could be used as an
>adjective?
No.
Remember. Okrand said that verbs used as adjectives after nouns may have
NO SUFFIX OTHER THAN -qu'. Later canon contradicted that and seems to
indicate that they can have -be' also. There is NO canon (just a feeling
among speakers) that would permit -Ha'. Me, I like it, but there is no
canon to permit it. There us *certainly* no canon to permit -laH, and
adding a permitted suffix (assuming -Ha' is one) doesn't change the fact
that you have one that isn't permitted.
Besides, even if it were allowed, you'd have to treat it like other
adjectival verb constructions: as though it's a relative clause with the
modified noun as the subject (i.e. Duj tIn <==> tInbogh Duj). That gives
us "lIjHa'laH qeylIS" (note that -Ha' has to follow the verb immediately),
which means (allowing for ambiguity of suffix-ordering) "Kahless who can
misforget" or "Kahless who un-can forget." Either way it sounds like we're
praising him for not missing his appointments (why -Ha' and not -be' I
don't know), not for the fact that OTHERS don't forget him.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMp7/v8ppGeTJXWZ9AQGD/gMAq18WiUY9fEQuXDIjUqKAK9Dzi59U1Q/I
c5a3t9y5abMt4jYMxlWkGkypSOYOvYOP7OkuOVgM/+MLBNqUiUhqnpdLvKyeh2eG
wbr0z2DUNMjkObQ4ikJcbh7pfsWZMTAI
=l+KR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----