tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 28 16:35:01 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: grammar question: verbs used adjectivally
- From: QeS 'utlh <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: grammar question: verbs used adjectivally
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:33:59 +1000
- Importance: Normal
ghItlhpu' mI'qey, ja':
>The way I read TKD, verbs used adjectivally can't
>carry any suffix other than a rover (e.g., {qu'})
>and/or a type 5 suffix transferred from the noun {e.g.
>{vaD}). Is this correct?
Yes, that seems to be correct. Here's the relevant citation from TKD:
"If a Type 5 noun suffix is used (section 3.3.5), it follows the verb, which, when used to modify the noun in this way, can have no other suffix except the rover {-qu'} "emphatic". The Type 5 noun suffix follows {-qu'.}" (TKD p.50)
That leaves very little room for misinterpretation (although since then, I seem to recall we've had canon that apparently allows {-Ha'} and maybe {-be'} on verbs acting adjectivally, although I can't for the life of me remember what that canon is). Obviously you're right in that allowing adjectival verbs to take other suffixes would vastly increase the range of meanings we can express (e.g. *{Qagh napba'} "an obviously simple mistake"), but relative clauses can usually handle this just as well: {napba'bogh Qagh} "a mistake which is obviously simple".
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
_________________________________________________________________
Live Earth ‘07 updates, artist info & concert streams!
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=790&referral=windowslivehotmailtagline&URL=http://liveearth.ninemsn.com.au