tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 06 00:29:24 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Modified Adverbials
ja' peHruS:
>While we have seen several (but not all) adverbials taking the VERB suffix
>{-Ha'},...
SIbI' yImev. wot neH tlhejlaH wot mojaq. Or do you think that we've seen
verbs taking the noun suffix {-ba'}, or nouns taking the verb suffix {-lI'}?
>...At the qep'a' SochDIch I asked
>MO about some. Most were approved. I really liked {jaSHa'}, but MO
>disallowed that particular one.
chay'? De'vam vISovpu'be'. Oddly, *you* are the only person I've ever
noticed using it, and that was definitely *after* qep'a' SochDIch. It
would have been nice for you to let us know at the time that {jaSHa'} is
invalid. I was aware of {vajHa'} being "balked at"; perhaps that's what
you're thinking of? I hope you don't take this too badly, but given your
history of misremembering facts-qoq and events-qoq, I'm not prone to accept
as gospel what you claim Marc Okrand said.
>Would it mean anything to say {nomchu'}, {tughbej}?
Dapna' Dachupbej. Type 6 verb suffixes are supposed to denote the
speaker's certainty of an action, but {nom} and {tugh} aren't actions. Oh,
sure, as wordplay their intent is reasonably clear, but as real words?
naDnIS Okrand vIlajpa'.
>I'd guess that's
>stretching the language in ways it has never gone, and is not advisable.
The term "stretch" here is an understatement.
>What about {naDevDaj}? {voghmaj}? {Datchaj}? Probably senseless drivel.
>The basic semi-adverbials are nouns,...
nuqjatlh? "basic semi-adverbials"?? Senseless drivel indeed. yIQIj.
>but that may not mean they can take the
>usual noun suffixes, right?
The only relevant restriction on what suffixes they can take is that these
three nouns never get {-Daq}. {naDevDaj} might need some rather odd
context in order to be useful, but it's not automatically nonsense.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh