[108388] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Adjective suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Tue Dec 13 13:49:36 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 13:49:03 -0500
In-Reply-To: <c0c6f7ba-5473-33cc-92a3-26db63b935a2@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.
--===============5357567662140910360==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------4F86BBAB0458DAE3EB12B403"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------4F86BBAB0458DAE3EB12B403
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 12/13/2016 1:39 PM, Lieven wrote:
> Am 13.12.2016 um 17:16 schrieb SuStel:>> I think TKD is very clear on
> that:
>
>
>> Since Okrand has obviously violated the only*-qu'* rule many times, it
>
> please, examples.
Qu'vatlh!!!! Do I have to do this AGAIN?! I JUST posted examples last week.
Here are the *&@@#$% initial examples of each suffix. I will not locate
additional examples.
*Dujmey tInqu'*/very big ships/ (TKD)
*wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'*/ten useless tribbles/ (PK)
*Duj ngaDHa'*/unstable vessel/ (KGT)
>
>> 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./
>
> I disagree.
> {Quchlaw' loD} is a phrase/sentence "Verb+Subject". The "action" is
> being happy. What is he doing? He is being happy.
>
> {loD Quchlaw'} is not a phrase/sentence that can stand alone. There is
> no "action" in the sense of something happening. It's a noun plus a
> descriptive word.
The difference is between a sentence and an adjective, not between an
action and a description. Besides, the explanation of type 6 suffixes
doesn't say anything about ACTIONS being qualified, OR sentences; it
simply says "these suffixes show how sure the speaker is about what is
being said." An adjectival verb is something being said; qualifying it
with a type 6 suffix meets that criterion. The only question is whether
it's allowed at all due to the original restriction placed on adjectival
verbs, which Okrand has occaionally chipped away at, but only VERY slightly.
>
>> **Duj tInlaw'* means a ship that is apparently big; *DujHey tIn* means a
>> big thing that might be a ship. Not the same thing.
>
> This is your interpretation here. At this point, nobody knows what it
> really "means".
>
> It was you who taught me not to assume that things may mean something
> just because you think that's what they mean before having canon rules
> about them.
Thank you, I was making that point at YOU.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------4F86BBAB0458DAE3EB12B403
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 1:39 PM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:c0c6f7ba-5473-33cc-92a3-26db63b935a2@gmx.de"
type="cite">Am 13.12.2016 um 17:16 schrieb SuStel:>> I think
TKD is very clear on that:
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Since Okrand has obviously violated the
only*-qu'* rule many times, it
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
please, examples.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Qu'vatlh!!!! Do I have to do this AGAIN?! I JUST posted examples
last week.</p>
<p>Here are the *&@@#$% initial examples of each suffix. I will
not locate additional examples.</p>
<p><b>Dujmey tInqu'</b><i> very big ships</i> (TKD)<br>
<b>wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'</b><i> ten useless tribbles</i> (PK)<br>
<b>Duj ngaDHa'</b><i> unstable vessel</i> (KGT)<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote cite="mid:c0c6f7ba-5473-33cc-92a3-26db63b935a2@gmx.de"
type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">So you wouldn't allow words like
*Quchlaw'*/he seems to be happy/ or
<br>
*tujbej*/it is definitely hot/? Of course you would, yet these
are no
<br>
more "actions" than the verbs in *tlhIngan Quch* /happy Klingon
/and
<br>
*QuQ tuj*/hot engine./
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I disagree.
<br>
{Quchlaw' loD} is a phrase/sentence "Verb+Subject". The "action"
is being happy. What is he doing? He is being happy.
<br>
<br>
{loD Quchlaw'} is not a phrase/sentence that can stand alone.
There is no "action" in the sense of something happening. It's a
noun plus a descriptive word.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>The difference is between a sentence and an adjective, not
between an action and a description. Besides, the explanation of
type 6 suffixes doesn't say anything about ACTIONS being
qualified, OR sentences; it simply says "these suffixes show how
sure the speaker is about what is being said." An adjectival verb
is something being said; qualifying it with a type 6 suffix meets
that criterion. The only question is whether it's allowed at all
due to the original restriction placed on adjectival verbs, which
Okrand has occaionally chipped away at, but only VERY slightly.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote cite="mid:c0c6f7ba-5473-33cc-92a3-26db63b935a2@gmx.de"
type="cite"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">**Duj tInlaw'* means a ship that is
apparently big; *DujHey tIn* means a
<br>
big thing that might be a ship. Not the same thing.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is your interpretation here. At this point, nobody knows what
it really "means".
<br>
<br>
It was you who taught me not to assume that things may mean
something just because you think that's what they mean before
having canon rules about them.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Thank you, I was making that point at YOU.<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>
--------------4F86BBAB0458DAE3EB12B403--
--===============5357567662140910360==
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
--===============5357567662140910360==--
