tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 16 13:45:56 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: multiple verb suffixes

Lieven Litaer ([email protected])

• From: "Lieven Litaer" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: multiple verb suffixes
• Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:45:12 +0100 (MET)
• References: <[email protected]>

> > > {vIchennISchoHmoH} - is there only one interpretation, or a bunch
> based on context?
...
> > A bunch, based on context. 
...

We seem to forget the Rover {-qu'}, described in section 4.3 of TKD:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
  {-qu'} "emphatic"

  This suffix emphasizes or affirms whatever immediately precedes it.
[...]

  The roving nature of {-qu'} can be seen in the following set:

    {pIHoHvIpbe'qu'} "we are NOT afraid to kill you"
    {pIHoHvIpqu'be'} "we are not AFRAID to kill you"
    {pIHoHqu'vIpbe'} "we are not afraid to KILL you"

[...]

The first word above might be used after an enemy challenged the bravery of
the speaker. The second might be followed by an explanation such as, "We are
not willing to kill you because we require your services." The third word
would be used to emphasize killing, as opposed to some other form of punishment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> One can go through the variations:
> I need to start causing it to form.

{chen} is "take form"
{chenmoH} is "cause to take form" = "form"

Quvar.

-- 
+++ NEU bei GMX und erstmalig in Deutschland: TÜV-geprüfter Virenschutz +++
100% Virenerkennung nach Wildlist. Infos: http://www.gmx.net/virenschutz

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: multiple verb suffixes
    • From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: multiple verb suffixes
    • From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Imperatives with {-eghmoH}, round 2
• Next by Date: Re: Imperatives with {-eghmoH}, round 2
• Previous by thread: Re: multiple verb suffixes
• Next by thread: Re: multiple verb suffixes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level