tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 04 14:42:12 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sovchu'wI' (a wise man)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Sovchu'wI' (a wise man)
- Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:32:58 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 14:07:08 -0800 (PST) K'ryntes
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> William H. Martin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 06:04:26 -0800 (PST) K'ryntes
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > ..
> > > mataHmeH laHmeymaj tu'Ha' DIDubnIS.
> > >
> > > Why not just make undiscovered an adjective? Doesn't look so messy that way.
> >
> > It also doen't look anything like correct this way. {tu'} is a
> > transitive verb. It means "discover". It does not mean "be
> > discovered". The subject is the one doing the finding. The
> > object is the thing being found.
>
> Are you saying that transitive verbs can't be used as adjective at all? Or did I
> just do it wrong in this situation?
Never, under any circumstances, can any transitive verb be used
as an adjective. Besides already knowing that, Okrand confirmed
that in the HolQeD interview in the section dealing with {Hop}
and {Sum}. Since these can be used as adjectives, they cannot
have direct objects.
> > You also seem a bit vague on
> > the difference between {-be'} and {-Ha'}. I'll assume you've
> > seen the other post on that and I'll avoid repeating myself.
>
> Yes, I was thinking I could use *-Ha* to make words opposite.
Well, it does, but there are different kinds of opposite.
> >
> >
> > Nice try, though, misguided as it was. butlh Daghajba'.
>
> qatlho'neS. :)
>
> K'ryntes
charghwI' 'utlh