tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 02 07:19:21 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: adverb suffixes???
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: adverb suffixes???
- Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:17:20 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 22:41:46 -0600 Steven Boozer
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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}
or {rut} for that matter.
> {DaH} vs. {ngugh}
or {tugh} or {qen}.
For some of these, like {DaH} or {not}, negation would be either
vague or surreal. It is not a concept that fits all things
equally. I think some adverbials lack negative forms not because
there are already other adverbs with the opposite meaning, but
because a negative form would not be especially meaningful.
> 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 would be interesting to study the scope of adverbials. Does
this indeed work to say that you read the book but not quickly,
or is it limited to say only that you did not read the book and
the action of not reading it is something that you did quickly.
Perhaps I had been reading it, but I was asked to stop, and I
decided to quickly follow the suggestion, and so: 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
charghwI'