[98415] in tlhIngan-Hol
[Tlhingan-hol] Multiple verb suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bellerophon, modeler)
Mon Apr 14 23:14:47 2014
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:14:24 -0400
From: "Bellerophon, modeler" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============0094985761779773122==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c136a466102104f70c32f2
--001a11c136a466102104f70c32f2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:26 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Q: ghorgh tujchoHpu' bIQ?
>
> A: bIDachtaHvIS, tujchoHpu' bIQ.
>
I take it you would interpret {tujchoHpu'} as something like "finish
becoming hot." Why not just {tujchoH}, as SuStel asked? Because water
becomes hot gradually? Certainly not because you need {-pu'} for
grammatical tense! I'd think the change of state might be considered
perfective in its own right, or have continuous and perfective aspects,
depending on whether the process is of interest to the speaker and the
listener, as it might be if the kettle was taking too long to boil. Also
possible then would be {tujchoHtaH bIQ}.
This means the Type 7 suffix acts not on the root, but on the root + Type 3
suffix as a whole. It strongly implies some kind of grammatical "chain
rule;" that each suffix modifies the totality of what precedes it, like so:
[...(((prefix+verb+suffix)+suffix)+suffix)+...]
Type 8 would be an exception; it's merely like saying "Sir" at the
appropriate time. But rovers clearly modify what comes before them.
I wish now I could remember the example someone on this list cited, in
which they interpreted a suffix as applying to the verb + the following
suffix. It seems like it was something along the lines of {lo'moHlaH},
interpreted as "make usable" instead of "can cause to use." At the time I
had no more reason to question this interpretation than a vague feeling.
It seems like the combined action of multiple suffixes would be an
important grammatical rule, though I have never seen one stated.
~'eD
--
My modeling blog: http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
My other modeling blog: http://bellerophon.blog.com/
--001a11c136a466102104f70c32f2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M=
on, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:26 PM, De'vID <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a>=
></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">Q: ghorgh tujchoHpu' bIQ?<br></p><p dir=
=3D"ltr">
A: bIDachtaHvIS, tujchoHpu' bIQ.</p></blockquote><div>I take it you wou=
ld interpret {tujchoHpu'} as something like "finish becoming hot.&=
quot; Why not just {tujchoH}, as SuStel asked? Because water becomes hot gr=
adually? Certainly not because you need {-pu'} for grammatical tense! I=
'd think the change of state might be considered perfective in its own =
right, or have continuous and perfective aspects, depending on whether the =
process is of interest to the speaker and the listener, as it might be if t=
he kettle was taking too long to boil. Also possible then would be {tujchoH=
taH bIQ}.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This means the Type 7 suffix acts not on the root, but =
on the root + Type 3 suffix as a whole. It strongly implies some kind of gr=
ammatical "chain rule;" that each suffix modifies the totality of=
what precedes it, like so:</div>
<div><br></div><div>[...(((prefix+verb+suffix)+suffix)+suffix)+...]</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>Type 8 would be an exception; it's merely like saying=
"Sir" at the appropriate time. But rovers clearly modify what co=
mes before them.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I wish now I could remember the example someone on this=
list cited, in which they interpreted a suffix as applying to the verb + t=
he following suffix. It seems like it was something along the lines of {lo&=
#39;moHlaH}, interpreted as "make usable" instead of "can ca=
use to use." At the time I had no more reason to question this interpr=
etation than a vague feeling.</div>
<div><br></div></div><div>It seems like the combined action of multiple suf=
fixes would be an important grammatical rule, though I have never seen one =
stated.</div><div><br></div><div>~'eD</div>-- <br>My modeling blog:=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 <a href=3D"http://belle=
rophon-modeler.blogspot.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://bellerophon-modeler.=
blogspot.com/</a><br>
My other modeling blog:=C2=A0 <a href=3D"http://bellerophon.blog.com/" targ=
et=3D"_blank">http://bellerophon.blog.com/</a><br>
</div></div>
--001a11c136a466102104f70c32f2--
--===============0094985761779773122==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============0094985761779773122==--
