[108385] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Adjective suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Tue Dec 13 11:17:22 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:16:49 -0500
In-Reply-To: <2ec78cf4-709e-39c2-48dc-7da903b68c81@gmx.de>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============0655389856174714419==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------85AFE4E7E31EA9A6BC3F3DAA"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------85AFE4E7E31EA9A6BC3F3DAA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 12/13/2016 11:05 AM, Lieven wrote:
> 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.
It doesn't say that only *-qu'* may be used when there is a type 5 noun
suffix on it; it says that an adjectival verb can have no suffix besides
*-qu', *and any type 5 suffix for the noun goes at end of the adjectival
verb. The wording is confusing on this point, but unambiguous.
Since Okrand has obviously violated the only*-qu'* rule many times, it
is clearly non-operative, though its sense of restriction remains with
us since it's not clear exactly what suffixes /are/ allowed on such verbs.
> 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 you wouldn't allow words like *Quchlaw'*/he seems to be happy/ or
*tujbej*/it is definitely hot/? Of course you would, yet these are no
more "actions" than the verbs in *tlhIngan Quch* /happy Klingon /and
*QuQ tuj*/hot engine./
The restriction on adjectival verb suffixes is a somewhat arbitrary one,
probably because lots of suffixes make no sense on such verbs. We
started with "only *-qu',*" then got a few more that made sense. Without
information from Okrand, we cannot conclude with any certainty that
unattested suffixes may be used.
> 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}.
>
**Duj tInlaw'* means a ship that is apparently big; *DujHey tIn* means a
big thing that might be a ship. Not the same thing.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------85AFE4E7E31EA9A6BC3F3DAA
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/13/2016 11:05 AM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:2ec78cf4-709e-39c2-48dc-7da903b68c81@gmx.de"
type="cite">Am 13.12.2016 um 15:32 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">/TKD/ only describes using *-qu'* in this
way. Further canonical
<br>
examples have shown us *-be'* and *-Ha'.* None has ever shown us
<br>
multiple suffixes, though I would have no problem accepting *Duj
<br>
tInqu'be'* for /not very big ship./
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agreed. Using both -qu' and -be' is confirmed in TKD.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Although we have never seen any other verb
suffixes, I would not at all
<br>
be surprised to discover that type 6 verb suffixes are allowed,
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think TKD is very clear on that:
<br>
"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'."
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>It doesn't say that only <b>-qu'</b> may be used when there is a
type 5 noun suffix on it; it says that an adjectival verb can have
no suffix besides <b>-qu', </b>and any type 5 suffix for the
noun goes at end of the adjectival verb. The wording is confusing
on this point, but unambiguous.</p>
<p>Since Okrand has obviously violated the only<b>-qu'</b> rule many
times, it is clearly non-operative, though its sense of
restriction remains with us since it's not clear exactly what
suffixes <i>are</i> allowed on such verbs.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote cite="mid:2ec78cf4-709e-39c2-48dc-7da903b68c81@gmx.de"
type="cite">
Next, TKD states that type 6 suffixes "show how sure the speaker
is about what is being said."
<br>
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.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>So you wouldn't allow words like <b>Quchlaw'</b><i> he seems to
be happy</i> or <b>tujbej</b><i> it is definitely hot</i>? Of
course you would, yet these are no more "actions" than the verbs
in <b>tlhIngan Quch</b> <i>happy Klingon </i>and <b>QuQ tuj</b><i>
hot engine.</i></p>
<p>The restriction on adjectival verb suffixes is a somewhat
arbitrary one, probably because lots of suffixes make no sense on
such verbs. We started with "only <b>-qu',</b>" then got a few
more that made sense. Without information from Okrand, we cannot
conclude with any certainty that unattested suffixes may be used.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote cite="mid:2ec78cf4-709e-39c2-48dc-7da903b68c81@gmx.de"
type="cite">
So finally, I think that a socalled *Duj tInlaw'* is really a
{DujHey tIn}, *Duj tInbej* is really a {Dujna' tIn}.
<br>
<br>
If you insist on focussing on the verb, say {tInlaw'bogh Duj}.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><b>*Duj tInlaw'</b> means a ship that is apparently big; <b>DujHey
tIn</b> means a big thing that might be a ship. Not the same
thing.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------85AFE4E7E31EA9A6BC3F3DAA--
--===============0655389856174714419==
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
--===============0655389856174714419==--
