tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 20 12:13:11 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QamvIS Hegh, torvIS yIn
From: "Jiri Baum" <[email protected]>
> DloraH
> > But a noun phrase isn't a sentence. A sentence needs a verb.
>
> Well, that was based on the theory that the law'/puS construction is two
> noun-phrase-only sentences in apposition. Which would imply that it's
> possible to use S V1 V2 as a noun phrase, with V2 modifying V1.
>
> *{Duj tIn puS} somewhat big ships
> *{veng tIn teH} truly big city
> *{jaw mIgh watlh} purely evil lord
Huh? Is it just me, or is this a non sequitur?
It isn't possible to do this. KGT p. 82 first explains how some colors are
described thus: /SuD 'ej wov/ "it is /SuD/ and light." Next, it explains
that "with the basic terms, the verbs, or verbs plus the emphatic /-qu'/,
may be used adjectivally and modify preceding nouns: /bIQ SuD/
('blue/green/yellow water') . . . . This adjectival construction is not
possible with the lengthier formations, however. To describe yellow tea . .
. one must say /SuD Dargh 'ej wov/ . . . or SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh . . .
."
Nowhere has it ever been said that verbs can modify other verbs adjectivally
as they do nouns. Okrand never points out a sentence with two
adjectivally-acting verbs and says "this is wrong," but the passage above is
pretty clear in meaning. Ya' can't do it.
SuStel
Stardate 1803.5