tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 10 17:16:02 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Monster verb construction - does this work?
ja' Joel Peter Anderson <[email protected]>:
>I don't anticipate ever using this in a sentence (I'm doubt it even
>expresses a coherent thought). However, as an example, and as a mnemonic
>or chart of all the verb suffixes in action does this work?
No, you've missed a pair of "rovers" that need to be considered.
{-Ha'} and {-Qo'} have their defined places in the order of things.
>And, for that
>matter, can someone suggest a better construction? (My aim was to have a
>handy word like the noun QaghHommeyHeylIjmo' that uses all of the nominal
>suffixes 1-5):
Since the Type 5 verb suffixes don't really have anything to do with
each other, something like this can't be completely useful, and you'd
still have to remember that {-qa'} and {-choH} are the same type, as
well as {-chu'} and the rest of the "qualification" suffixes. Since
one of the common errors I see is the attempt to use {-chu'} and {-law'}
at the same time, I don't think an example string of suffixes is going
to help a lot.
{QaghHommeyHeylIjmo'} is right at the edge of the typical person's
ability to hold each syllable in mind separately. A twelve-syllable
verb overflows the brainbuffer completely.
> bIHup'eghnISbe'qa'moHlaHbejtaHneS'a'
>
>d'Armond's pojwI' didn't blink at this and yielded:
>
> you (yes/no)? honorific on-going certainly can cause todo again
> not need to oneself punish
>
>(Whatever *that* means!)
Isn't it obvious? :-) "Are you certainly being able to cause yourself to
not need to punish again, your honor?" Granted, the proper application of
the "cause" and "need" and "again" and "self" ideas is a bit ambiguous.
-- ghunchu'wI'