tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 08 09:02:37 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: imperatives of verbs of quality

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: imperatives of verbs of quality
• Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:01:23 -0500
• References: <[email protected]>

From: <[email protected]>

> 20040225 qon SuStel:
> >KGT taught us that when imperatives are used with verbs ofquality,
> non-idiomatic speech requires that they take the {-'egh} and the{-moH}
suffixes.
> here is the relevant text from kgt (p. 117):
>
> >Generally, when a verb describing a state of being (for
> example, {tuj} ["be hot"]) is used in the imperative form,
> the suffixes {-egh} (reflexive suffix) and {-moH} ("cause")
> are used as well:  {yItuj'eghmoH ("Heat yourself!" -- that
> is, "Cause yourself to be hot!"), {yItaD'eghmoH!} ("Freeze
> yourself!"--that is, "Cause yourself to be frozen!").  When
> {taD} is used in the idiomatic sense of "not move," how-
> ever, it is treated as if a verb describing an activity, such
> as {yIt} ("walk"): {yIyIt!} ("Walk!").
>
> the first word is "generally", thus these suffixes are not required, even
in
> non-idiomatic use.


That's right, the first word is "generally."  That means you can't ignore it
every single time you use it, because then you're not using it "generally."

I'm sorry for being annoyed, but when did this become the
Finding-Creative-Ways-Around-What-Okrand-Says list?  ***ALL*** of the
grammar descriptions we have are used "generally."  There is nothing that is
absolutely 100% unbreakable.

SuStel
Stardate 4185.3

• References:
  • imperatives of verbs of quality
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: phantom words
• Next by Date: if not {pemHov},...
• Previous by thread: imperatives of verbs of quality
• Next by thread: Re: imperatives of verbs of quality
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level