[108371] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Adjective suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?=)
Tue Dec 13 03:46:35 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CABDLMbUFiZvGWV6XxJqj4pohAZC8jubHbe+fc01A3+WFBp+KJw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?= <esperantist@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:46:31 +0100
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============4362556048019033300==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f4182cf7d400543864150
--f403045f4182cf7d400543864150
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Somewhere (TKD I suppose) it's written that the only suffixes following a
verb used as an adjective can be the negation suffixes {-be', -Ha'} and the
intensifier {-qu'}. I think it's logical that both can occur together. So I
have no doubts that you can say {Duj tInqu'be'} with the intended meaning.
But other suffixes are excluded, do the answer to question 2 is no. It is
easily understood, but ungrammatical.
- Andr=C3=A9
On 13 Dec 2016 08:18, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been meaning to ask..
1st question: Can we have on a be-verb which is used adjectively, more
than one rover-type suffix ? Can we write {Duj tInqu'be'} for "not
very big ship" ?
2nd question: Can we have on a be-verb which is used adjectively, a
non-rover suffix ? Can I write {Duj tInba'} for "obviously big ship" ?
qunnoH jan puqloD
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--f403045f4182cf7d400543864150
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto">Somewhere (TKD I suppose) it's written that the only =
suffixes following a verb used as an adjective can be the negation suffixes=
{-be', -Ha'} and the intensifier {-qu'}. I think it's logi=
cal that both can occur together. So I have no doubts that you can say {Duj=
tInqu'be'} with the intended meaning.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><=
div dir=3D"auto">But other suffixes are excluded, do the answer to question=
2 is no. It is easily understood, but ungrammatical.</div><div dir=3D"auto=
"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">- Andr=C3=A9</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_e=
xtra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 13 Dec 2016 08:18, "mayqel qun=
enoS" <<a href=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>&g=
t; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I've been me=
aning to ask..<br>
<br>
1st question: Can we have on a be-verb which is used adjectively, more<br>
than one rover-type suffix ? Can we write {Duj tInqu'be'} for "=
;not<br>
very big ship" ?<br>
<br>
2nd question: Can we have on a be-verb which is used adjectively, a<br>
non-rover suffix ? Can I write {Duj tInba'} for "obviously big shi=
p" ?<br>
<br>
qunnoH jan puqloD<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a=
><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhinga=
n-hol-kli.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--f403045f4182cf7d400543864150--
--===============4362556048019033300==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============4362556048019033300==--
