[3730] in tlhIngan-Hol
Noun-Noun Construction
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Mar 9 18:28:10 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 18:18:12 -0500
In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Tue, 8 Mar 94 17:29:45 EST <199403082229.
RAA08303@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>Date: Tue, 8 Mar 94 17:29:45 EST
>> > I think there is a pretty strong case for using it adjectivally, so
>> >long
>> >as it is used without the Type 5 noun suffix.
>> >
>> >charghwI'
>>
>> Since when do we consider something an adjectival only if it tacks on a
>> type
>> 5 suffix.
>You've completely missed my point. The word was WITHOUT. TKD says that
>you cannot use any suffix except {-qu'} on a verb being used adjectivally IF
>THE VERB HAS A TYPE 5 NOUN SUFFIX, which it gets if it follows a noun that
>would logically receive that Type 5 suffix.
Um, just for myself, I've always read that passage as meaning that *any*
verb used "this way" (i.e. *as an adjective*) can have no suffix except an
optional "-qu'" and an optional Type 5 noun suffix. This has been weakened
by some canonical use of "-be'" on adjectival verbs, but it still looks
that way to me. I'm loath to believe that suffixed verbs can be used as
adjectives, especially if it means that they can only be used so when
they're the subjects or the objects (i.e. that I could say "?tar HeghmoH
vIlegh" but not "?tar HeghmoHmo' bIQ tlhutlhvIp.") It just doesn't seem
sensible, logical, intuitive, or even likely for a language like Klingon
(note that sense, logic, and intuition aren't reliable guides).
>charghwI'
~mark
