[87078] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Comparatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Tue Nov 24 20:58:07 2009
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:56:31 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <a1173fff0911241736u4fc89c5cu5a1d52a3be664a5e@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Christopher Doty wrote:
>> No, that'd be just {lamHa'}. {waqmey lamHa'} "cleaned shoes." (Not
>> {waqmey Say'} "clean shoes," because {lamHa'} carries the implication
>> that they were previous dirty.)
>
> Sure, forget the subject prefix. If waq lamHa' is okay, then that is
> the only point I was trying to make: it demonstrates that something
> other than -qu' and -Daq can go on verbs, at least other rovers.
>
>>> You can do this with relative clauses, of
>>> course, I'm just curious. I admit that the sentence I put up earlier
>>> wouldn't work with that space, but I still wonder about the original
>>> question: can other stuff go on verbs used as adjective?
>> Not according to any rule we've ever been given or any example we've
>> ever seen. Only rovers. If you want other stuff, use relative clauses.
>
> Okay, sure, but there is nothing that says we can't use -Ha' on the
> end of a verb used as an adjective.
Oh, I didn't know you were trying to say this. No, we know it for a
fact: KGT gave us {Duj ngaDHa'} "unstable vessel." PK gave us {wa'maH
yIHmey lI'be'}. I don't think we've ever seen {-Qo'} on an adjectival
verb, and I'm not sure it would mean anything sensible.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
