tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 28 16:35:02 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: grammar question: verbs used adjectivally

McArdle ([email protected])



--- David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> There is canon that disagrees. I've just skimmed
> through The Klingon Way
> and found the following:
> 
> 	meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH
> 	Only a fool fights in a burning house. (p. 111)
> 

Thanks; this is just what I was looking for.

I don't have TKW, just TKD and KGT.  It looks like I
might be able to pick up a copy pretty cheaply,
though.  Is it worth having?

> > But except for {'e'} (and, now that I think of it,
> {Daq} for verbs of
> > motion), bearing a type 5 suffix disqualifies a
> noun from being
> > either the subject or the object of a verb.
> 
> No it doesn't. It usually doesn't make any sense,
> but there's nothing
> that actually says that.
> 

I'm trying to imagine how you might put {mo'} (for
example) on a subject or object, and it's not working.
 The absence of an explicit prohibition leaves room
for argument, but in general I'd think the default
assumption has to be that nouns marked for basically
adverbial functions (benefactive, causative, locative,
etc.) don't function this way, and I would expect a
grammar to contain an explicit note if this assumption
is violated.  (As does TKD when it says [in section
3.3.5] that objects of verbs of motion can, but
needn't, carry the locative suffix.)

Of course, in this case as always, one canon citation
is worth a thousand speculations.

qavan

mI'qey


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469





Back to archive top level