tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 04:35:04 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: poH taD pagh poH bIr
- From: QeS 'utlh <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: poH taD pagh poH bIr
- Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:32:25 +1000
- Importance: Normal
ghItlhpu' qa'pIn, ja':
>Not to bite the hand that "feeds" me, but isn't {bIrqu'be'bej} illegal?
>both {qu'} and {be'} are rovers, and type 9.
No, the type 9 suffixes are an entirely different set: {-DI'}, {-ghach},
{-wI'}, {-vIS} and so forth.
>I have been taught/learned that two suffixes of the same type are
>not to be used in the same verb construction.
Ordinarily, and for all numbered types of suffixes, that's right. But rovers
don't seem to follow this rule. We have several examples of two rovers
appearing together, including from TKD itself:
nuQaw'qu'be'
they have not finished us off (TKD p.48)
pIHoHvIpbe'qu'
we are definitely not afraid to kill you (TKD p.49)
I would have no problem with {jotHa'Qo'} "he refuses to put it back
up", {ngeHbe'qu'} "he will definitely not send it", or even
{naDHa'be'qu'Qo'} "he absolutely refuses not to discommend him".
The rovers are probably better viewed not as a class on their own, but
almost "classless"; note that {-Ha'} and {-Qo'} can't even rove. {-Ha'}
must appear before a type 1 suffix, and {-Qo'} between types 8 and
9.
bIyaj'a'?
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pab po'wI'
(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
_________________________________________________________________
Overpaid or Underpaid? Check our comprehensive Salary Centre
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent%2Emycareer%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fsalary%2Dcentre%3Fs%5Fcid%3D595810&_t=766724125&_r=Hotmail_Email_Tagline_MyCareer_Oct07&_m=EXT