tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 24 18:06:30 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Comparatives

Christopher Doty (

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 <> 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

Back to archive top level