tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 02 03:52:44 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: adverb suffixes???

jatlh Voragh:
>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.

There is, however, a difference between {nombe' *Okrand* paq chu' vIlaD} and 
{QIt *Okrand* paq chu' vIlaD}. The latter means, "I read Okrand's book 
slowly." The former means, "I read Okrand's book not-quickly." You might have 
read it slowly or you might have read it at average speed, but you didn't 
read it quickly.

However, {nomHa'}, as far as I can tell, would be pretty much the same thing 
as {QIt}, so that is likely to be why we don't have {nomHa'}, as you said.

- DujHoD

Back to archive top level