tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 12 12:59:51 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?
- From: Alex Greene <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:58:15 +0000 (GMT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s1024; t=1263329895; bh=ZmQqa4yufNaXvuTJseAdFP1ACNvY5bRisjtScaZUJl4=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=G9gak9jf79WkEtXFNXYSkVLEg6bp1ZbUJ3/iqQ+Imn7oTMwGgLodPdT/O+HT71z4uYk5lTB6vV6XVPOkcby33FRcFh+H42VDOVHrZurCXow91jXgOW1cV6xKqJX2ubND7o76b7LgaQlbtP14I1H8zcWTIkl0DKb3OafztAqKkGY=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=RTuBiBNArMSzQGuVxtvEw0pBcEai0bX1e36SVSv94VqAUn5UCSadqcyyrU1e7YLjtWOehyokgIJNPzFvzxMm/95c4iXDjItVfqhDnfMg4oAZSQqIe8br1x8NKQsEtxUUVrlSgrSJMBOln0kNl/vSIC3dgh61XPvSOyJydESVBGU=;
- In-reply-to: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A60113A1A56605@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
> Alex Greene:
> >in KGT. Other apocrypha I was thinking of, mostly
> adverbials, are:-
> > *loQHa' greatly, a lot
> We already have the adverbial {tlhoy} "overly, to an
> excessive degree, excessively, too much" and the verb {'Iq}
> "be too many, be too much", both introduced by Okrand in HQ
> 8.3:
I like Klingon a lot. I I cannot get enough Klingon. I cannot like Klingon too much.
We'd need an adverbial for "a lot" rather than "a little" yet which does not convey a sense of "excessive."
Whatever ultimately fits the bill, and I'd suggest that the rover suffix -qu' emphatic might have something to do with it, the need for an adverbial for "a lot" will be there even if an explicit adverbial is not. Till then I'll have to make do with -qu' to modify a verb accordingly.
> > *pay'Ha' gradually
> > *pe'vIlHa' gently, softly, lightly, weakly
> > *pIjHa' infrequently, not often
> {pIjHa'} seldom, infrequently (listed in KGT)
> > *SIbI'Ha' after a delay
> >This is based on the apparent pattern of nItebHa'
> "together" and Do'Ha'
> >"unfortunately" and ...
> HQ 4.4: Whether this {-Ha'} can be added to all
> adverbials is not clear. The notes taken while working with
> Maltz indicate that he balked at {vajHa'} ("not thus?") but
> accepted {Do'Ha'} "unfortunately". Information on other
> adverbials has not yet been uncovered, though it is probably
> in the notes somewhere.
vaj and chaq seem to be adverbials with a different usage to the others.
Adverbials such as nom, QIt, pay' and SIbI' modify the activity of the main verb: QIt jagh HoH SuvwI' naS; pay' Heghpu' SaqwI'ghom Hoch, or whatever. vaj and chaq do not. They seem to be used in the manner of "Thus {sentence}" or "Perhaps {sentence};" the activity of the verb in that sentence does not alter in the way that it does for pIj or pe'vIl.
"That is not so" would be something like "qarbe' Dochvetlh," "lughbe' Dochvetlh" or "teHbe' Dochvetlh" if I were trying to translate the above sentence. *vajHa' doesn't sit right with me either.