tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 03 11:35:34 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: "creative"

Steven Boozer ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

Holtej:
>{chenmoHlaH} does not mean "be creative."  It means "he can create (it)"
>(and other null-prefix options).  You can't, for instance, say *{ghot
>chenmoHlaH} to mean "creative person"; this means "he can create a person."
>Just wanted to clear that up.

{chenmoHlaH} cannot be used attributively, of course, but you can say 
predicatively {chenmoHlaH ghot} "the person can create (in general)" with 
the no-object third person "null" prefix:

   used when there is no object; that is, when the action of the verb
   affects only the subject (the "doer") ... also used "when an object
   is possible, but unknown or vague. Thus {jIyaj} "I understand" can
   be used when the speaker understands things in general, knows what
   is going on, or understands what another speaker has just said.
   ... Similarly, {maSop} "we eat" can be used to indicate a general
   act of eating... (TKD 33f)

In some contexts - though, of course, not all - a creative person can be 
considered someone who can create in general, someone who can perform a 
general act of creation.

This reminds one of {lo'} "use, make use of" vs. {lo'laH} "be valuable" 
("can make use of"?) and {lo'laHbe'} "be worthless" ("cannot make use 
of"?).  Yes, I know Okrand has said that this pattern is not productive:

   [{lo'laH}] is a simple verb in its own right (though it's an unusual
   two-syllable one), not the verb {lo'} "use" plus Type 5 suffix {-laH}
   "can". It is likely that there is some sort of historical connection
   to the verb + suffix form, but, if so, it is just that--historical.
   (st.klingon 11/1997)

but, still...



-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level