tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 01 15:12:45 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: adverb suffixes???
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: adverb suffixes???
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:13:34 -0700
> Why couldn't I use verb suffixes to the adverbs?
The same reason you can't use noun suffixes on verbs - the grammar just
doesn't allow it. We do know that some adverbials can take <-Ha'>, but
that's it. I don't remember the exact list, but I know it includes
<batlhHa'>, <Do'Ha'>, and <pIjHa'>.
> Wouldn't they fit neatly? Think about these examples:
> chIchHa' qaqIt.
Use <bong> instead of <chIchHa'>.
> SIbI'be' qajanglaH. tugh qajang.
DaH qajanglaHbe'.
> pe'vIllaw' Dujvetlh SeH SoDvetlh. motlhbe' ghaH.
I'm not sure what the <-law'> would mean, even if it were allowed. Are you
uncertain as to the force of the control? How's this for your idea:
<Dujvetlh SeHbej SoDvetlh, 'ej ghaytan pe'vIl SeH> ?
Also, the pronoun in the second sentence should be <'oH> - neither a <Duj>
nor a <SoD> can speak.
> bonglaH ghaH DaHoHpu'. 'ach DaHoHpu' SoH.
This should clearly be <chaq bong>. You were trying to say "It could be
accidental that you killed him", and <-laH> does not work for this kind of
"can/could", even on verbs. <-laH> is only for the ability of the subject of
the verb to do the action of the verb, as in <jIlaDlaH> or <jIpujlaw', 'ach
qaHoHlaHbej>.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm