tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 15 05:25:15 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Type 7 suffix and {-jaj}
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Type 7 suffix and {-jaj}
- Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 05:25:07 -0800
At 08:34 97-11-14 -0800, muHwI' wrote:
}In einer eMail vom 14.11.97 16:37:25 MEZ, ghItlh SuStel:
}
}> I don't know if this has been pointed out before:
}>
}> If verbs with {-jaj} never take an aspect suffix (TKD pp. 175-6), how come
}> we can say {wo' DevtaHjaj ghawran} (KGT p. 26)?
}
}I understand
}{Devjaj} - "may he lead"
}{DevtaHjaj} - "may he be leading", "may he always lead"
}
}Perhabs this was another error MO did, maybe he meant that it doesn't make
}sense to say "may you have scared your enemies". And then he forget that it
}does make sense to say "may you be <verb>ing"...(??)
The point is, that Marc Okrand in 1992 wrote that aspect suffixes were not
used with {-jaj} and in 1997 used them without further clarifying the rule.
Possibilities are:
1. Marc forgot the rule when he was writing KGT.
2. Marc changed his mind about that restriction.
3. Marc had this exception in mind all along, but didn't have enough room to
include it in the second edition TKD.
To address this situation Marc might:
1. Do nothing and leave us ever wondering about it.
2. Explain that it was his mistake when he put the -taHjaj in KGT.
3. Explain the rule more fully, showing it to be an oversimplification that
didn't account fot certain exceptions.
Until then we have contradicting rule and canon, which equals a question mark.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian