tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 01 21:24:29 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: adverb suffixes???
DujHoD
: 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.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons