tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 23 00:29:44 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Opposite of -wI'
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Opposite of -wI'
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 15:25:22 +1000
ghItlh peHruS:
>It does seem possible that the Klingon verb stem can have suffixes
>preceeding
>-wI'. Some do not appear quite logical. About 6 years ago, Mark Shoulson
>said that using both -lu' and -wI' would not work.
>
>I can see that -chuq is a problem. -neS just doesn't do much.
>
>But, -choH, -qa', -nIS, -vIp, -qang, -rup, -beH, -laH, -taH, -lI', pu',
>-ta'
>all appear to have limited possibilities. I'd like to see comments and
>thoughts about this for a while. I don't see any reason to claim that they
>can work
>at all times.
>
cha' DarSeqmeywIj qanob:
A noun like ??<<muSHa''eghwI'>> "narcissist, one who loves him/herself"
probably couldn't be translated many other ways, and it's concise. However,
before I go any farther, I'm going to shoot my own argument here.
I've recently been reading discussions in the archives, and it seems one of
the more hotly debated topics of grammar is whether a noun with <<-wI'>> can
take verbal prefixes (with the theory going that since one can add verb
suffixes before using <<-wI'>>, why not prefixes?). It seems that the
general consensus on this point is "No, it's not possible".
If this is the case, then any suffix which affects prefix structure probably
shouldn't be permitted either, since these suffixes (viz. <<-'egh>>,
<<-chuq>> and <<-lu'>>) alter the way prefixes are attached and, if there
*is* no prefix, how can one alter the prefix structure?
That being said, there are other suffix possibilities. I like using class 2
suffixes on <<-wI'>> verbs in my private writings, such as <<juH
mejvIpqu'wI'>> "agoraphobe" (don't know strictly how legal this is, or
whether it's easily translatable, but it seems to work). Terms like
<<laDlaHbe'wI'>> "person who is illiterate" don't take a <<yab'a'>> to
understand, either (although they might well be better treated as relative
clauses, <<juH mejvIpbogh nuv>> or <<laDlaHbe'bogh nuv>>).
I am interested to know what situations other people think such suffixes
could *not* be used in. I couldn't think of any problems, other than
semantic ones, with type 2 suffixes + <<-wI'>>.
peHruS: Do you recall Mark's argument for why one probably couldn't use
*<<-lu'wI'>>?
qatlho' 'ej Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
ninemsn Extra Storage is now available. 30MB of storage on ninemsn Groups -
great for sharing photos and documents. Go to
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/home&pgmarket=en-au