tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 21 08:09:37 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: suffixes on adjectival verbs

Steven Boozer ([email protected])



Qang qu'wI' wrote:
> >Well, I'm getting back into tlhIngan Hol after a long break, and I
> >just read something in TKD that surprised me.  It states pretty
> >clearly that only {-qu'} can be used on verbs used adjectivally.
> >Until reading that, I likely would have used {-be'} as well without
> >thinking about it.  Does TKD have the final word regarding using only
> >{-qu'}, or is there any subsequent canon that amends TKD to also allow
> >{-be'}?

Voragh:
>It's likely that Okrand considered {-be'} such an obviously useful and
>common suffix that he forgot that he had inadvertently disallowed it.

Qang qu'wI':
> >>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

Voragh:
> >True, but {motlhbe'} "be unusual" is not a separate verb.  IOW you cannot
> >add {-be'} and say *{motlhbe'be'} "not be unusual".  It was included simply
> >to make it easy for the average non-linguist Star Trek fan who wanted to
> >look up "unusual".

Qang qu'wI':
>That's a great point.  It (thankfully) undermines the nagging concern I had
>that maybe MO had added this word specifically in order to be consistent
>with only allowing {-qu'} because he actually meant what was written in TKD.
>
>The engineer in me has a natural aversion to making such a strong
>generalization from just one data sample.  But that sensibility probably
>doesn't apply to deducing languages from samples.

To show that {motlh} "be usual, be normal" vs. {motlhbe'} "be unusual" is 
not a unique exception, I've found other examples of qualities which are 
listed with and without {-be'} separately in the TKD and KGT glossaries:

   {jub}     be immortal
   {jubbe'}  be mortal

   {le'}     be special, be exceptional
   {le'be'}  be unexceptional, be nonspecific

   {lI'}     be useful
   {lI'be'}  be useless

   {lo'laH}     be valuable
   {lo'laHbe'}  be worthless

   {rur}     resemble [i.e. be like]
   {rurbe'}  be different

Note this action verb (used very frequently on this List!):

   {Qoch}     disagree
   {Qochbe'}  agree

ter'eS:
>>Don't forget our old friend {-Ha'}, as in {Duj ngaDHa'}!

More examples of qualities with the Rover {-Ha'}:

   {bel}     be pleased
   {belHa'}  be displeased

   {Do'}    be fortunate, be lucky
   {Do'Ha'  be unfortunate, be unlucky

   {jej}     be sharp
   {jejHa'}  be dull (not sharp)

   {jot}     be calm
   {jotHa'}  be uneasy

   {matlh}     be loyal
   {matlhHa'}  be disloyal

   {ngaD}     be stable, be balanced
   {ngaDHa'}  be unstable, be unbalanced

   {pIv}     be healthy
   {pIvHa'}  be unhealthy

   {quv}     be honored
   {quvHa'}  be dishonored

   {Qey}     be tight
   {QeyHa'}  be loose

   {Quch}     be happy
   {QuchHa'}  be unhappy

   {ru'}     be temporary
   {ru'Ha'}  be permanent

   {tlhorgh}     be pungent
   {tlhorghHa'}  be bland

   {yep}     be careful
   {yepHa'}  be careless

   {yuD}     be dishonest
   {yuDHa'}  be honest

   {'ey}     be good, be delicious, be tasty, be harmonious
   {'eyHa'}  be undelicious, poor-tasting

So to paraphrase Michael Dorn's advice in "Conversational Klingon":  Use 
Rovers boldly; do not be meek or hesitant!




--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons






Back to archive top level