tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 27 07:30:34 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Grammar Highlight Each Day (bo-)

> From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:41:49 CST
>
> why, of course! My whole point was, that the un-prefixed verb form
> cannot be used in a sentence. I no longer claim that. But I still
> think it is only used in conjunction with suffixes {-wI'},  {-meH}
> and {-ghach}

Just to pin down my own beliefs about this, I think that, given the usage 
we've seen, {-wI'} and {-ghach} always use the unprefixed versions of the 
verbs, while {-meH} is more in doubt. It seems to be useful both with and 
without a prefix.

Basically, there seems to be a difference between nominalizing a verb and 
using it as a modifier.

If you are nominalizing a verb, as you do with {-ghach} and {-wI'}, you use 
the bare verb stem with no prefix. {-ghach} very nearly requires other verb 
suffixes before it. Okrand has spoken about this in HolQeD, explaining that 
the {-ghach} pins down the flavor of its nominalization by modifying the 
suffix it follows. It was primarily created in order to nominalize verbs 
with {-Ha'}. It was originally created in order to make the word 
{naDHa'ghach} and it was only later that Okrand explored other suffixes it 
could be used to follow.

{-wI'} is typically used on a bare verb stem with no other afixes 
whatsoever, though nothing prevents us from using other suffixes. We have 
no evidence, however, that prefixes are allowed. The grammatic function one 
would be attempting by putting a prefix on a {-wI'} nominalized verb would 
be better served by using {-bogh} and creating a relative clause.

Meanwhile we have examples of {-meH} modified verbs both with and without 
prefixes. It can modify nouns and verbs. It is a very versatile suffix. 
There was a HolQeD article a while back addressing {-meH} and whether or 
not prefixes are required and the rather interesting conclusion posited was 
that perhaps there is always a prefix on {-meH} modified verbs. Perhaps 
{ghojmeH taj} doesn't just mean "learning knife", but instead means 
"in-order-that-he-learns knife". There is no clear way to prove that a 
seemingly missing prefix isn't a null prefix in this instance.

And if we want to get into aspects of Klingon grammar from a very 
non-human-language perspective, {-DI'} also becomes interesting. In effect, 
it also is a nominalizing suffix. It turns a verb into a time stamp and 
time stamps, in Klingon, are nouns. Meanwhile, since events involve 
subjects and objects as much as they involve the action of the verb, and 
since time stamps are events, verbs with {-DI'} do have prefixes.

Tugging on anybody's synapses? Rattling anybody's cage?

SarrIS

jupna'wI' DataH jajmey bIr.

Back to archive top level