tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 14 10:09:30 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Type 7 suffix and {-jaj}
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Type 7 suffix and {-jaj}
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:58:30 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: m109 <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, November 14, 1997 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Type 7 suffix and {-jaj}
>>If verbs with {-jaj} never take an aspect suffix (TKD pp. 175-6), how come
>>we can say {wo' DevtaHjaj ghawran} (KGT p. 26)?
>
>Why not, if it is appropriate, use adverbs to indicate timescale, as in
>reH tlhIngan wo' taHjaj
>This also shows another way that a sense of may *something* continue
>using the verb taH (taHjaj)
{reH} and {-taH} are not equivalent. {reH} means "always." It does not
indicate that an action occurs continuously. I might "always" do something
once a day.
Similarly, {-taH} does not mean that something goes on forever. It simply
means that the action is spread out over time, and does not occur
instantaneously.
{reH wo' Devjaj ghawran} would be grammatically correct according to TKD.
This sentence means "May Gowron always lead the Empire." This is a very
different thing to say than {wo' DevtaHjaj ghawran} "May Gowron continue to
lead the Empire." The second sentence is forbidden by TKD, but it occurs in
KGT.
The only way I can think of to use {taH} the verb would be in something
horribly grotesque like {taHjaj ghawran DevtaHghach} "May Gowron's continued
leadership endure." No way am I going to use that sort of thing in a real
conversation.
SuStel
Stardate 97872.0