[108384] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Adjective suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lieven)
Tue Dec 13 11:05:29 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Lieven <levinius@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:05:28 +0100
In-Reply-To: <71e33c20-10de-c366-a52c-aebbfe294745@trimboli.name>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
Am 13.12.2016 um 15:32 schrieb SuStel:
> /TKD/ only describes using *-qu'* in this way. Further canonical
> examples have shown us *-be'* and *-Ha'.* None has ever shown us
> multiple suffixes, though I would have no problem accepting *Duj
> tInqu'be'* for /not very big ship./
Agreed. Using both -qu' and -be' is confirmed in TKD.
> Although we have never seen any other verb suffixes, I would not at all
> be surprised to discover that type 6 verb suffixes are allowed,
I think TKD is very clear on that:
"If a Type 5 noun suffix is used, it follows the verb, which, when used
to modify the noun in this way, can have no other suffix except the
rover -qu'."
This still does leave some space for interpretation, like "no other
suffix, only when Type 5 suffix is used"(?) - but I think that if one
could have been allowed to add oter suffixes, there would be an example.
Next, TKD states that type 6 suffixes "show how sure the speaker is
about what is being said."
I read this is focussed on the verb of the OVS-phrase, the "action".
When used as an adjective, the verb is no longer doing an "action" in
the phrase, and besides, it fits the object or subject slot.
So finally, I think that a socalled *Duj tInlaw'* is really a {DujHey
tIn}, *Duj tInbej* is really a {Dujna' tIn}.
If you insist on focussing on the verb, say {tInlaw'bogh Duj}.
--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka Quvar valer 'utlh
Grammarian of the KLI
http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
http://www.klingonwiki.net
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
