tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 17 09:13:20 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: suffixes on adjectival verbs
- From: "Qang qu'wI'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: suffixes on adjectival verbs
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:12:00 -0600
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=Nwy7wJ/aPY3rjjUzUuCLReV8unrnqLtaqmypSz2qyRU=; b=GUxapxMWAF6GLFNYWKVO5R47jJTPuYT45bZIv7qbudRqhYxgU6PIYSjuh0LkYB0yL5tlmMXoa26bjLqgVdsdQTJYAVMgC43VN9JxX2FErml/8vQs0wsYv83rjMyBuGq2DNv+xP/t/P7CMh4xxs8w11tZXiMMC1c3jnwbLtd1454=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=ElgN8bxLyl4xOyd8q/uovJixj/j+o5ie5T93P5Bqa/Hh6Nq11zm8qrjtV3F7Ht4pkK+mmTNGtR5o0osgH/bqiBnAF8CyBVl4ncY7HaChhQmNB1bGf7LJ64JqA5Udtp2kMv9UjWShz0uwQOVB3VfY+dBGxhPK3XaaeFxXeAAFKIw=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On 11/16/07, Steven Boozer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> It's likely that Okrand considered {-be'} such an obviously useful and
> common suffix that he forgot that he had inadvertently disallowed it.
maj. qatlho'qu'.
This is not 100% what I wanted to hear, but it'll do (I think). Looking
through the list that you provided, I think the only true counter-example
is:
wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'
ten useless tribbles. CK
For reasons unknown to me, my tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom has {motlhbe'} as it's
own entry, so this one isn't really a strong counter-example:
tera'ngan motlhbe' SoH
You are an unusual Terran. PK
The section I was referring to in TKD was specifically discussing the
quality verb when used following a noun, so I don't think that rest apply.
I guess, the counter examples seem pretty weak compared to how strong the
TKD passage is, but I suspect your explanation is correct.