tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 16 19:44:15 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Adjectives WAS RE: KBLS: Storm
- From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Adjectives WAS RE: KBLS: Storm
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 97 02:42:06 UT
ghItlh SuStel:
>Assuming {jev} means "storm (v)" as in weather, it's not a qualitative verb.
It cannot be used adjectivally. You must use a relative clause. {nujon jevbogh
tat 'eng!}
I won't argue with the sentence you give - it is entirely correct, and is
better than mine. But this opens a can of qaghmey - what exactly can be used
adjectivally?
Clearly, any verb that translates as "be <adjective>" is usable adjectivally.
Ex. loD jen = tall man. {jen (v) be tall}
We could also use this verb in a relative clause. jenbogh loD = man who is
tall. The meaning is not really changed - perhaps the tallness of the man is
less prominent in the second example, but we are really saying the same thing
in two ways.
Now, what about moD (v) hurry? moDbogh loD = man who hurries is OK if we mean
this in a general sense. But what if I want to specify the fact that the man I
am referring to is the one whose present state is that of hurrying? Why not
say loD muD = hurrying man?
loD muD yIpuS 'ej yIbaH! Sight the hurrying man and fire!
Another example - if I have a plant hanging in my window, which is a more
descriptive noun phrase? HuSbogh poch, or poch HuS?
poch HuS vIje'nISbej HeghchoHlaw'taHmo'. I need to feed the hanging plant
because it seems to be dying.
Now, I am not saying that all verbs can be used adjectivally. But there are
surely some that can be which are not so clearly marked. What guidelines would
you set down for correct usage of verbs adjectivally? (That is, besides TKD's
"state or quality" (p. 49) direction, which is quite open to interpretation,
as I hope I have shown.)