tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 05 05:13:17 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: pe'vIl jev

Tad Stauffer ([email protected])

• From: Tad Stauffer <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: pe'vIl jev
• Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 08:17:16 -0400

[email protected] writes:
> > >   nomqu'?
> >
> > A few suffixes can be added to some adverbials, such
> > as {-qu'}, {-be'}, {-Ha'}. {nom} "quickly" + {-qu'} =
> > "very quickly".

lay'tel SIvten:
>I could find only five adverbials that seem to have a suffix, and they all
>have {-Ha'}:
>batlhHa' - KGT p211; TKW p55, 139
>Do'Ha' - ST3, KGT p214; TKD pp 1, 35, 48, 171
>ghaytanHa' - New Word List (main) [Radio Times]
>nItebHa' - New Word List (main) [Bird of Prey poster]
>pIjHa' - KGT p223
>
>mu'mey chu' lIngbe' mojaq rurbogh mu' 'a'vam net Sovlaw'.
>
>[I thought the consensus was that even though this looks like a suffix, it is
>not productive.]

In HolQeD Volume 4, Number 4, bottom of page 11, Okrand mentions using 
{-Ha'} on (some) adverbials. So if you said {nomHa'}, it might be 
acceptable, but I would wonder why you didn't just use {QIt}. It also 
mentions that Maltz thought *{vajHa'} sounded weird.

However, I don't think we've ever seen {-be'}, {-qu'}, or any other verb 
suffixes on adverbials. The only exception I can think of would be {Do'be'} 
or {Do'qu'}, but in those cases that would be the verb {Do'} "be lucky" and 
not the adverbial {Do'} "luckily, fortunately".

If you want to say something like "It was moving really quickly", I think 
{nom vIHqu'} works adequately.

- taD 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: pe'vIl jev
    • From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
  • Re: pe'vIl jev
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Klingon WOTD: pagh (number)
• Next by Date: Re: pe'vIl jev
• Previous by thread: Re: pe'vIl jev
• Next by thread: Re: pe'vIl jev
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level