tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 24 17:57:33 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Comparatives

David Trimboli ( [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

Christopher Doty wrote:
>> No, that'd be just {lamHa'}. {waqmey lamHa'} "cleaned shoes." (Not
>> {waqmey Say'} "clean shoes," because {lamHa'} carries the implication
>> that they were previous dirty.)
> Sure, forget the subject prefix.  If waq lamHa' is okay, then that is
> the only point I was trying to make: it demonstrates that something
> other than -qu' and -Daq can go on verbs, at least other rovers.
>>> You can do this with relative clauses, of
>>> course, I'm just curious.  I admit that the sentence I put up earlier
>>> wouldn't work with that space, but I still wonder about the original
>>> question: can other stuff go on verbs used as adjective?
>> Not according to any rule we've ever been given or any example we've
>> ever seen. Only rovers. If you want other stuff, use relative clauses.
> Okay, sure, but there is nothing that says we can't use -Ha' on the
> end of a verb used as an adjective.

Oh, I didn't know you were trying to say this. No, we know it for a 
fact: KGT gave us {Duj ngaDHa'} "unstable vessel." PK gave us {wa'maH 
yIHmey lI'be'}. I don't think we've ever seen {-Qo'} on an adjectival 
verb, and I'm not sure it would mean anything sensible.

tlhIngan Hol MUSH

Back to archive top level