tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 28 07:21:48 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: two rovers on one verb

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: two rovers on one verb
• Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:18:27 -0400
• Bcc:

>From: [email protected]
>
>unlike the other nine types which can have only one
>suffix of each type appearing on a verb at a time, there may be more than 
>one
>rover on a verb at a time.
[...]
>Is this accurate?

Yes.

>Is it common knowledge?

I haven't taken any surveys, but it is certainly used liberally enough 
around here.

>Are rovers different in any other
>ways from the other types of verb suffixes?

So far, we've only seen rovers on verbs that are modifying nouns 
adjectivally.  Examples:

     Dujmey tInqu'
     very big ships (TKD p. 49)
     (That {-qu'} may be put on adjectivally-acting verbs is stated 
explicitly here.)

     wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'
     ten useless tribbles (CK)

     Duj ngaDHa'
     unstable vessel (KGT p. 150)

Keep in mind that only two of the four rovers actually rove.  {-Ha'} and 
{-Qo'} always appear in fixed positions.

SuStel
Stardate 4491.7

_________________________________________________________________
Make the most of your family vacation with tips from the MSN Family Travel 
Guide! http://dollar.msn.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: two rovers on one verb
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: two rovers on one verb
• Next by Date: RE: two rovers on one verb
• Previous by thread: two rovers on one verb
• Next by thread: RE: two rovers on one verb
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level