tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 14 18:44:06 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: "ser" and "estar" (to be)

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja' SuStel:
>> >I don't think the word "action" should be taken quite that literally.
>>
>From: "Steven Boozer" <[email protected]>
>> Yes, it should.  Although he doesn't state it in so many words, Okrand
>> clearly distinguishes in practice between the two types of Klingon
>> verbs:  qualities and actions...
>
>I disagree with this.  Yes, the grammar of Klingon does make a distinction
>between actions and qualities, but Okrand's description of the grammar
>usually does not.

The distinction pretty much boils down to letting "verbs of quality" serve
roles that "verbs of action" cannot:  adjectival use and in {law'}/{puS}
comparatives.  With the trivial exception of taking verb prefixes
indicating an object, I can't think of any places where actions have
privileges denied to qualities.

>There are tons of other examples.  I won't go through them all.  The
>conclusion is inescapable: when Okrand says "action," he usually means
>"action or quality."

I concur.

>> >/jIH/ isn't a verb, but you can use verb suffixes on it.
>>
>From: "Steven Boozer" <[email protected]>
>> Only certain suffixes, not all of them.
>
>This is unproven.  It is my opinion that not all suffixes will go on
>pronouns, but that even Klingons might not agree on the list of suffixes.

TKD say something about pronouns taking verb suffixes "where appropriate"
when acting as "to be".  It doesn't say "where legal".  I think any
restrictions on which suffixes are appropriate would be based on meaning,
not grammar.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level