tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 08 10:58:56 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: adjectives, ???

David Trimboli wrote:

> This is not quite right.  We've seen {-qu'}, {-be'}, and {-Ha'} on
> adjectival verbs.
> veng tInqu'Daq
> In the very big city (The Klingon Dictionary, p. 50)
> wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'
> Ten useless tribbles  (Conversational Klingon, how to count)
> Duj ngaDHa'
> Unstable vessel (Klingon for the Galactic Traveler, p. 150)
> Therefore, a more accurate description might be that when a verb is acting
> adjectivally, it may only have rovers for suffixes (not counting the
> migrating Type 5 noun suffix).

Arrrgh!  This is slightly frustrating you know.  The dictionary says one thing
then canon has examples otherwise.  So I'll pen the above into my dictionary
(which looks more like a journal now) and I'll think, "Okay, I got it now!"
Then it will change again...... oh well, I can't complain I guess.  The more
options the merrier.

> It might possibly be true that an adjectival verb can take any suffix which
> doesn't change the verb's "quality" nature.  For instance, {tIn} means "be
> big" and is a verb of quality.  {tInba'} means "obviously big," and is still
> a verb of quality.  {tInchoH} means "become big," and no longer refers to
> only a quality.
> However, the above paragraph is merely speculation, and there are absolutely
> no examples of anything other than a rover on an adjectivally-acting verb.

It's a good point though and I'd bet that we will see something like that

> SuStel
> Stardate 99268.0


Back to archive top level