tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 09 19:21:09 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}
{chen} is an odd word and I don't know that we've been given really
good canon to help explain how to use it. One thing is clear, though.
It is intransitive without {-moH}. There is a being which takes form.
It doesn't take form something else, though something else can cause
it to take form.
In terms of being stative, I doubt it would be meaningful
adjectivally. "Could you please hand me the take-form knife?" It's
not like "hot" or "cold" or "tall" or most of the other stative verbs.
Doq
On Dec 6, 2007, at 9:14 AM, McArdle wrote:
>
> --- Doq <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> (chenmoH is an
>> action verb, not a stative one -- it would be
>> stative without the -
>> moH)
>> ...
>
> I don't understand this. I don't know how {chen} is
> used in canon (other than as part of {chenmoH}), but
> it's defined as "build up, take form" and this doesn't
> seem like a stative concept to me. Isn't taking form
> (unlike "having form") an active process rather than a
> state?
>
> -- mI'qey
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/
> newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>
>
>