tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 08 20:52:17 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: adjectives, ???

TPO wrote:

> >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.
> I don't see anywhere in TKD where it states that a verb acting adjectivally
> can't take anything except -qu'.

It doesn't say that.  It says the verb can take the N5 and/or -qu'.  And as SuStel
pointed out to us, we have canon examples of other rovers being used.

> It says -qu may follow the verb, and it says that only -qu can be used when
> a type 5 noun suffix is used.

I believe you misread the section.  It reads as follows...

If a Type 5 noun suffix is used, it follows the verb, which, when used to modify
the noun in this way, can have no other suffix except the rover -qu' emphatic.  The
type 5 noun suffix follows -qu'.  TKD pg. 50

The part that says "which, when used to modify the noun..." is referring to the
verb not the type 5.

> If only -qu can be used anytime the verb is an adjective, why also specify
> that only -qu can be used if a type 5 is used?

-qu, or another rover, can be used regardless of a type 5 being used.  A type 5 can
be used regardless of a rover being used.  Or, they can be used together.

> But on the other side... in the description for -qu is the only place TKD
> mentions that a suffix can be used on adjectives.
> It doesn't say yes, but it doesn't say no either.  Again Marc left breathing
> room for himself.
> Also... perhaps you should pencil it into your dictionary, instead of pen.  :)

Good point.


> DloraH

Back to archive top level