Re: agentive -wI'

[willm@cstone.net]

I wanted to stay out of this, but when I tried translating it all for 
charghwI', he got upset.

Basically, {-wI'} is a very simple tool for a very simple purpose. It is like a 
fast bluebird. Don't admire its speed and then try to strap it to a cart and 
use it as a pack animal.

It really is a lot like "-er" in English. We have the word "killer". We don't 
have a word for "able-to-killer", or "killeder". It works for bare verb stems. 
It works for {-moH} in some cases. It probably works with {-Ha'}. That's pretty 
much as far as it can go. I wouldn't even use it with {-be'}.

Follow the good advice to use {-bogh} or even use multiple, smaller sentences 
to handle more complex ideas.

Will

> From: "Sean M. Burke" <sburke@cpan.org>
> 
> > I've got a wee question about -wI'.  In The Klingon Dictionary, I see
> > examples of it which are all of the form VERBROOT-wI'.  However, can one
> > have other verb affixes?
> 
> I see no reason why not, with one exception:
> 
> > ?HoHlu'wI' -- he/she who is killed
> 
> There has been debate on this before.  The problem here is that while /-wI'/
> turns the verb into a noun representing the original doer of the verb, with
> /-lu'/ the verb HAS no doer.  /-wI'/ doesn't magically start to refer to the
> verb's object.
> 
> > And just maybe some shade of meaning could be imparted by pronoun
> prefixes,
> > a` la Iroquois semi-nominals?
> >
> > DughojmoHwI' - he/she who teaches you(singlular)
> 
> Okrand says (HolQeD 3:3 I think) that prefix-verb-maybesuffixes-ghach
> doesn't work; I tend to believe that prefix-verb-wI' doesn't either.  What
> is */jIghojwI'/?
> 
> > And while we're at it, what's "teacher"?  ghojmoHwI'?  Would that argue
> for
> > allowing -wI' with other verb affixes, at least in lexicalized cases?
> > (Assuming "ghojmoH" is lexicalized.)
> 
> Who cares if it's lexicalized?  Okrand put verb+suffix combinations in the
> dictionary to assist the English word lookup, not to represent what Klingons
> consider indivisible words.  There's no reason these don't work.
> /ghojmoHwI'/ makes perfect sense.
> 
> SuStel
> Stardate 2143.4
>