[108638] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] be-verbs and the {-wI'}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ed Bailey)
Wed Dec 28 00:25:47 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAFK8js0GHStwdB3dPmo7nZJk-AZ04yqCNVi261puw=f7AtXsKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 00:25:42 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============4332978617483652063==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11467d664728aa0544b133ee
--001a11467d664728aa0544b133ee
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:47 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am wondering whether the addition of the {-wI'} on be-verbs, functions
>> differently from the way it does on non be-verbs.
>
>
> {-wI'} works the same, but the *translation* can be subtly different. It's
> typically "one who is" for a verb expressing a state or quality, and "one
> who does" for a verb expressing a more active concept. It's hard to use the
> English suffix "-er" for {-wI'} on a verb of quality like {tIn} "be big",
> but it's usually no problem to say something like "sleeper" for {QongwI'}.
>
I can only think of a few verbs in English that don't form acceptable nouns
with -er, like "have," "become," and "be." No one says "haver," "becomer,"
or "be-er." Nor "darer," "needer," "wanter, "fearer," etc., which seem to
form a pattern: "dare" can be an auxiliary verb, and the others function
similarly with an infinitive. Also we say "speaker" but never "sayer,"
except in compounds like soothsayer, and "healer" but not "curer." It would
be interesting to find out if there are Klingon verbs that don't form
acceptable nouns with {-wI'}.
Adjectives sometimes form collective nouns directly in English, like "the
old." (I think you'd just say {qanwI'pu'} in Klingon, since I know of no
collective noun for it.) Otherwise, it's indirect, like "one who is old,"
"old one," "oldster," "oldie," etc.
As for adding {-wI'} to Klingon verbs expressing a state or quality, are
there canon examples? I thought so, but so far I can't find any, except
ones with an intervening {-moH}, which don't count.
~mIp'av
--001a11467d664728aa0544b133ee
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Alan Anderson <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:qunchuy@alcaco.net" target=3D"_blank">qunchu=
y@alcaco.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px =
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><span class=3D"gmail-"><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote">On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:47 AM, mayqel qunenoS <span dir=3D"ltr=
"><<a href=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">mihkoun@gmail.=
com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1=
ex"> I am wondering whether the addition of the {-wI'} on be-verbs, fun=
ctions differently from the way it does on non be-verbs.</blockquote></div>=
<br></span>{-wI'} works the same, but the *translation* can be subtly d=
ifferent. It's typically "one who is" for a verb expressing a=
state or quality, and "one who does" for a verb expressing a mor=
e active concept. It's hard to use the English suffix "-er" f=
or {-wI'} on a verb of quality like {tIn} "be big", but it=
9;s usually no problem to say something like "sleeper" for {Qongw=
I'}.<br></div></div></blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div>I can only think of a=
few verbs in English that don't form acceptable nouns with -er, like &=
quot;have," "become," and "be." No one says "=
haver," "becomer," or "be-er." Nor "darer,&qu=
ot; "needer," "wanter, "fearer," etc., which seem =
to form a pattern: "dare" can be an auxiliary verb, and the other=
s function similarly with an infinitive. Also we say "speaker" bu=
t never "sayer," except in compounds like soothsayer, and "h=
ealer" but not "curer." It would be interesting to find out =
if there are Klingon verbs that don't form acceptable nouns with {-wI&#=
39;}.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">Adjectives sometimes form col=
lective nouns directly in English, like "the old." (I think you&#=
39;d just say {qanwI'pu'} in Klingon, since I know of no collective=
noun for it.) Otherwise, it's indirect, like "one who is old,&quo=
t; "old one," "oldster," "oldie," etc.<br></d=
iv><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">As for a=
dding {-wI'} to Klingon verbs expressing a state or quality, are there =
canon examples? I thought so, but so far I can't find any, except ones =
with an intervening {-moH}, which don't count.<br><br></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">~mIp'av <br></div><br></div></div>
--001a11467d664728aa0544b133ee--
--===============4332978617483652063==
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
--===============4332978617483652063==--
