tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 24 18:06:30 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Comparatives
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Comparatives
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:05:05 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3+KYcJ9y2sVq1np+Jfgn0+EgNyvibZiWc0e29dMKR+U=; b=tcdsuxP9ARwOU0zuMyt8U6w83pgBDcpiFLe5SDQu8E9eNMViU8FJnlp4Au9V5WPfDO gu+TFPPsfm1rM7hbAjWjUnDfWHuXSeRxX9emxew129MKABu5BxD5YOsr5MSjlhvmY60l x5+TodFo7VE/pnqrAJU8+smB8p/e2vpSOx3kk=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bUdMcriiHVh0ARYV//5Kla4iN1igtOiQDDsIpASURTQJqm6/5dxEWwZKvHIYhV8G5a RJyh5fEvnXEDlTXfruXCx5bhx8rZZYucR/fQfpDhAt3wFZ9QptcOQKdHYmvqL29DHnA7 fyUp5T9oZ5DF+fRgSwwDd3TWnZACTLqz36zcE=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Ya, I was just asserting that ghunchu'wI''s reading of the last
section of the bit on adjectives, which says only -qu' can occur, is
only true of adjectival verbs which take -Daq, and not of adjectival
verbs generally...
So, to sum: rovers=okay unless -Daq is present, then only -qu' (and
-Qo' is perhaps weird); no other suffix classes represented in canon;
best to use relative clause for these.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 17:56, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> --
> SuStel
> tlhIngan Hol MUSH
> http://trimboli.name/mush
>
>
>
>