tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 09 14:21:51 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Questions with law'/puS

Terrence Donnelly ( [KLI Member]

--- On Thu, 7/9/09, David Trimboli <> wrote:
> Eh? What would *{tlhIngan HoSghaj'a' vIlegh} mean? "I see
> the Klingon 
> who may or may not be powerful"?

We're talking about two different things: adjective verbs used descriptively, as adjectives, vs used attributively, as predicates. I was talking about predicate use, as a verb.  Of course, an interrogative on an adjective doesn't make any sense.

> It was in KGT, where Okrand is telling us about special
> exceptions to 
> the usual law'/puS construction. law'be'/puSbe' is a
> specially 
> sanctioned formation, and not evidence of a general trend
> of using verb 
> suffixes.

Did he come out and say in KGT that there are no other allowable suffixes?

> It's special. It can't be interpolated or expanded. It must
> remain 
> fixed. Period. Done. Game, set, and match. rIntaH.

Absence of evidence /= evidence of absence.

-- ter'eS

Back to archive top level