tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 08 11:05:17 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

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: imperatives of verbs of quality
• Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:04:12 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>

ja'pu' 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.

ja' SIvten:
>here is the relevant text from kgt (p. 117):
>[...]
>the first word is "generally", thus these suffixes are not required, even in
>non-idiomatic use.

The first word is "generally" because it's describing the typical case.  It
is followed by a description of the specific atypical case when an
imperative "state of being" verb is *not* accompanied by {-'egh} and
{-moH}.  The implied distinction is clear:  states of being need the
suffixes, and activities do not.

If you left them off verbs of quality whenever you wanted to, you'd no
longer be "generally" using them.  As awkward as it might seem at first,
this rule of usage is as valid as the one which says to put the suffixes in
the proper order.

[Note:  I myself tend to leave them off.  It's not a matter of style or a
disagreement with the rules.  It's a common mistake that I haven't yet
trained myself to avoid.]

-- ghunchu'wI'

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

• Prev by Date: RE: Welsh National Anthem (KLBC?)
• Next by Date: Re: tlhingan-hol Digest V1 #14
• Previous by thread: Re: imperatives of verbs of quality
• Next by thread: tlhoyHa'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level