tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 24 16:48:29 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

RE: (KLBC) Is this right?

DloraH ([email protected])

• From: "DloraH" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: (KLBC) Is this right?
• Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:00:34 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

> > >>> Yeah, but in this case, {-taH} seems appropriate, since
> > >>> patience is usually a continuous thing.
> > >
> > >> {tuvtaHghach} works very well because of the nature of
> > >> being patient: it's something you do over time.
> > >
> > > I like it because someone
> > > who isn't *continuously* patient simply isn't patient.
> >
> >With this explanation, we would never see tuv by itself; we
> >would always see tuvtaH.
>
> Not necessarily, although we've never seen Okrand use either form.  The
> only example of any type of patience we've seen used in canon is the
> antonym {boH} "be impatient":
[examples]
> I can see {tuv} being used without {-taH}:
[examples]
> or with {-taH}:
[examples]


I have no problem with tuv being used with or without -taH.  I believe there
are certainly valid uses for both.  I was just pointing out that the way
those quotes were written ("someone who isn't *continuously* patient simply
isn't patient." sounds like they would never use tuv without -taH.


DloraH

• References:
  • RE: (KLBC) Is this right?
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: (KLBC) Is this right?
• Next by Date: Klingon WOTD: qeylIS mInDu' (n)
• Prev by thread: RE: (KLBC) Is this right?
• Next by thread: Re: (KLBC) Is this right?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level