tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 01 21:24:29 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: adverb suffixes???

: Now, a question. Do we know of any adverbs that take {-be'} or any 
: other verb suffixes?

Nope.  AFAIK the only adverbial suffix we've seen is {-Ha'}, and only in
those five examples pagh and I listed.

I suspect the main reason adverbials don't use suffixes to form their
opposites is that there are already separate, etyomologically unrelated,
adverbials.  For example:

  {loQ]   vs. {tlhoy}
  {nom}   vs. {QIt}
  {chIch} vs. {bong}
  {not}   vs. {reH} or {pIj}
  {DaH}   vs. {ngugh}

There are no doubt more such pairs; we just don't know all of them yet.
Note that {tlhoy} and {ngugh} were only recently pried out of Maltz an
posted by Okrand on the startrek.klingon newsgroup.

And if you want to use {-be'} to negate an adverbial, try putting it on the
verb instead.  To negate:

  nom *Okrand* paq chu' vIlaD.
  I read Okrand's new book quickly.

you could say:

  nom *Okrand* paq chu' vIlaDbe'.

It's not quite the same thing as:

  QIt *Okrand* paq chu' vIlaD.

of course, but it gets the idea across.  Come to think of it, using the
aspect suffixes {-lI'}, {-pu'} and {-ta'} on the verb allows you to
fine-tune the meaning.

Ca'Non Master of the Klingons 

Back to archive top level