[86235] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Questions with law'/puS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Thu Jul 9 17:22:34 2009
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
--- On Thu, 7/9/09, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> Eh? What would *{tlhIngan HoSghaj'a' vIlegh} mean? "I see
> the Klingon
> who may or may not be powerful"?
>
We're talking about two different things: adjective verbs used descriptively, as adjectives, vs used attributively, as predicates. I was talking about predicate use, as a verb. Of course, an interrogative on an adjective doesn't make any sense.
>
> It was in KGT, where Okrand is telling us about special
> exceptions to
> the usual law'/puS construction. law'be'/puSbe' is a
> specially
> sanctioned formation, and not evidence of a general trend
> of using verb
> suffixes.
Did he come out and say in KGT that there are no other allowable suffixes?
>
> It's special. It can't be interpolated or expanded. It must
> remain
> fixed. Period. Done. Game, set, and match. rIntaH.
>
Absence of evidence /= evidence of absence.
-- ter'eS
