tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 05 16:26:32 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: pe'vIl jev
- From: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: pe'vIl jev
- Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:26:20 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' ter'eS, ja':
>A few suffixes can be added to some adverbials, such
>as {-qu'}, {-be'}, {-Ha'}. {nom} "quickly" + {-qu'} =
>"very quickly".
jang lay'tel SIvten, ja':
>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.]
As taD said, it's probably semi-productive. Some months ago I had some
discussion with a couple of other {po'wI'} about the feasibility of using
?{pe'vIlHa'} "gently" in a translation, and concluded that while not canon,
it seems reasonable. I also seem to recall reading a post in which Krankor
used {tlhoyHa'}; I'll have to dig up the reference, though.
Like the verb suffix {-ghach}, I think that using {-Ha'} on other adverbs
just requires careful thought and a bit of intuition. It needs to make sense
in Klingon. *{chaqHa'}, for instance, is probably out of the question, but
?{jaSHa'} might be a reasonable Klingon word ("in the same way", perhaps?),
and there are a couple of other adverbs that seem like they would be
perfectly capable of taking {-Ha'}.
Savan,
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Read, write and reply to Hotmail on your mobile. Find out more.
http://mobilecentral.ninemsn.com.au/mcmobileHotmail/home.aspx