tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 26 17:42:49 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: action verbs vs. qualities

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

> That was part of the point I was trying to make: that the use of {-ta'}
> requires the verb to have an agent. But, stative verbs don't seem to have
an
> agent (because their imperatives use {-'eghmoH}, which is an agent-forming
> suffix), and so I still think that {jIDoq'eghmoHta'} would be more likely
> that {jIDoqta'}. But maybe the fact that {-ta'} implies an agent means
that
> {-'eghmoH} is unnecessary here.

With verbs of quality, the subject may or may not be the agent; the fact may
be unstated.  {jIQeH} "I am angry" doesn't say whether I made myself angry
or someone else made me angry; I'm just describing a state I'm experiencing.
This is not to say that quality verbs do not have agents.  There is no rule
anywhere that says quality verbs cannot have agents.  If my adding {-ta'} to
some verb of quality implies that it has an agent, this doesn't break any
rules.

Use the suffixes that express the concept!  Obey the arbitrary rules that
Okrand creates, but otherwise express yourself using the tools available.
If for some reason {jIDoqta'} is more accurate an expression than
{jIDoq'eghmoHta'}, use it!  Don't quibble over rules that don't exist.  If
{jIDoqta'} does *not* express your concept, don't use it just because
someone said it was possible.  Until someone does that analysis I mentioned
earlier, don't worry about what someone thinks is a more likely
construction.  Just say what you want to say.

SuStel
Stardate 4402.5

Back to archive top level