tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 06 14:11:37 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: adverb suffixes???
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: adverb suffixes???
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 16:54:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 5 Dec 1999 09:26:39 EST [email protected] wrote:
> jatlh Clayton:
> >nItebchoH veng.
>
> jang mark:
> >This sentence no verb. If you mean "the city became alone", that would be
> >"mobchoH veng", whatever that means.
>
> LOL. Actually, {nItebchoH veng} means, "The cities fill you." ({nItebchoH} = {
> nI-} + {teb} + {-choH}).
Very amusing.
> jatlh Clayton:
> >qenba' jImej.
>
> ghel mark:
> >What does this mean that {qen jImejba'} doesn't?
>
> qenba' jImej. I fled, and that fleeing was obviously recent.
> qen jImejba'. Recently, I obviously fled.
>
> In English, they would probably both be translated as "I obviously fled
> recently," but there is a difference, qar'a'?
In English, adverbs can modify adverbs, whereas in Klingon,
except for rovers, suffixes and adverbials are fixed in position
and apply to the verb more than to one another. In English, the
difference you are looking for would be expressed:
I obviously recently fled.
I recently obviously fled.
Word order in English is so flexible, as are the use of helper
words. My favorite example (those who have been through this,
forgive me):
Only I hit the baby in the head.
I only hit the baby in the head.
I hit only the baby in the head.
I hit the only baby in the head.
I hit the baby only in the head.*
I hit the baby in only the head.*
I hit the baby in the only head.
I hit the baby in the head only.*
* Only three of these are duplicate meanings.
> Note that I do not necessarily agree with the use of type 6 suffixes on
> adverbs; I'm merely making a point.
It likely would have possibilities were it allowed. It is not
allowed.
> jatlh Clayton:
> >QItqu' yIt.
>
> jang mark:
> >Emphasizing the adverbs does make a certain amount of sense; {QIt yItqu'}
> >doesn't seem to have quite the same meaning as what you have above. But we
> >have no evidence that it can be done in Klingon.
>
> Personally, I like the use of rovers on adverbs...but I won't use them unless
> such usage becomes canonical.
maQochbe'chu'.
> - DujHoD
charghwI'