tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 16 20:05:41 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Adjectives WAS RE: KBLS: Storm



Neal Schermerhorn writes:
>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?

That's a very good question.

>Clearly, any verb that translates as "be <adjective>" is usable adjectivally.
>Ex. loD jen = tall man. {jen (v) be tall}

Is it really that clear?  What about {vIH} "move, be in motion"?  It's a
little borderline, in my opinion.

>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.

They're not exactly the same thing, though.  Using {-bogh} implies that you
are restricting the set of things you are talking about.  Using a verb in an
adjectival sense implies that you are describing the thing you are talking
about.

>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?

Why not?  Easy -- because Okrand didn't translate "running man" as {loD qet}.
We infer from this that verbs like {qet} and {moD} and {Qam} and {Hob} aren't
able to modify nouns in an adjectival sense.

>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.)

I think it's somewhat less open to interpretation than you imply.

-- ghunchu'wI'




Back to archive top level