tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 26 22:38:01 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: lIy Hale-Bopp
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: lIy Hale-Bopp
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 23:41 -0700
ghItlh SuStel:
> jatlh DaQtIq:
>> ghItlh [email protected]:
>> >wa'Hu' ram, lIyHey vIlegh. Hov rur 'ach ngup wew tuQ 'oH. 'IHqubej.
>>
>> batlh bIjatlh. lIy DaDelchu'. majQa'!
>>
>> Dun <ngup wew>. qar 'ej 'IH.
> 'IHbej, 'ach qarbe'.
> As I have pointed out, {wew} means "glow," not "be glowing," so it
cannot be
> used adjectivally. You'd have to say {wewbogh ngup}.
loQ jIQoch. <ngup wew> mub 'e' vItoblaHbe', 'ach mubHa'bej vItoblaHbe'
je.
Klingon may not be as restrictive about stative verbs as we generally
think.
The official word from TKD 4.4 is: "A verb expressing a state or quality
can be
used immediately following a noun to modify that noun." It gives examples
of <tIn> (be big) and <Doy'> (be tired). However, much like the endless
transitivity arguments, some verbs not defined as "be something" may be
open to interpretation. I think <wew> and <Qong> are two such words. I
don't plan to use them as stative verbs without further support, but I
think there
is room for argument.
pagh