Re: RE: adverb suffixes???

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@virginia.edu>]

Thinking more on this, I can see some possibilities for 
expansion of the list of adverbials that can take {-Ha'} BECAUSE 
they already have opposites:

tughHa' - far into the future.
qenHa' - far into the past.

Since the past-related potential meanings of {tughHa'} can be 
covered by {qen}, that leaves the "future, but not soon" meaning 
for {tughHa'}. Similar logic explains {qenHa'}.

I could also see a strange use of {pa'Ha'}, as in:

1: Qanqor wISamlaHbe'. Dat wInejpu'!
	[We can't find Krankor. We've looked for him everywhere!]

2: tachDaq bonej'a'?
	[Did you look for him in the bar?]

1: toH! pa'Ha' wInejpu'!
	[Argh! We've looked for him everywhere else!]

On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 18:09:47 -0600 Steven Boozer 
<sboozer@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:

> Clayton Cardoso:
> > Why couldn't I use verb suffixes to the adverbs?
> 
> pagh: 
> : 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'>.
> 
> Also <ghaytanHa'> and <nItebHa'>.
> 
> Okrand discussed this question in HolQeD 4.4:
> 
>   "Whether this {-Ha'} can be added to all adverbials is not clear.
>    The notes taken while working with Maltz indicate that he balked
>    at {vajHa'} ('not thus'?) but accepted {Do'Ha'} 'unfortunately'.
>    Information on other adverbials has not yet been uncovered, though
>    it is probably in the notes somewhere."
> 
> 
> -- 
> Voragh                       
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons 

charghwI'