tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 12 18:44:17 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

imperatives of verbs of state (round 2)

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: imperatives of verbs of state (round 2)
• Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:43:24 EST

regarding the so-called rule to use suffixes {-egh} or {-chuq} with 
imperatives of verbs of state:
kgt says these suffixes are *generally* used with such imperatives.  

instead of being a rule or prohibition, i think that this statement is simply 
an observation that, most of the time (i.e., generally), it only makes SENSE 
to use these suffixes.  

in other words, not using the suffixes is not in any way wrong, but rather, 
it's simply less common than with the suffixes.  

there may also be an implication that klingons in general prefer to have 
active agents in their imperatives, rather than simply passive patients who 
experience what the verb denotes.

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: imperatives of verbs of state (round 2)
    • From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: KLBC {chennISmoH}
• Next by Date: Re: KLBC
• Previous by thread: Re: sun vs. star
• Next by thread: Re: imperatives of verbs of state (round 2)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level