[88706] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nom qetwI'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI'nuv)
Sat Jan 22 00:13:19 2011
From: lojmIt tI'wI'nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D39D753.6020304@web.de>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:02:40 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
For me, the issue relates to the boundaries limiting the reach of the suffix {-wI'}. A suffix like {-meH} or {-mo'} or {-bogh} can drag adverbials along for the ride because they define clauses. {-wI'} doesn't form a clause. It just nominalizes a verb. It doesn't nominalize a whole clause. Just a word.
lojmIt tI'wI'
Sent from my iPod
On Jan 21, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Lieven Litaer <lieven.litaer@web.de> wrote:
> all of your advices are really nice, but I did not intend to stick to
> this {nom qetbogh loD}.
>
> I thought about an adjectivial use of an adverb. I know, this sounds
> strange. Perhaps it's a concept that nobody thought of, or it just
> doesn't work... ?
>
> Here some examples, that might or might not work:
>
> {nom qetwI' SoH}
> "you are a quick runner"
>
> {tlhoy SopwI' ghaH}
> "he's a too-much-eater"
>
> {not jeghwI'}
> "a never surrenderer"
>
> {pe'vIl tlhutlhwI'}
> "forcefully drinker"
>
> Do all of these just work in the pattern
> {adverb verb-bogh noun}?
>
> Quvar
> aka
> Lieven.
>
>
>
