[tlhIngan Hol] be-verbs and the {-wI'}

[Ed Bailey]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy at alcaco.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:47 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am wondering whether the addition of the {-wI'} on be-verbs, functions
>> differently from the way it does on non be-verbs.
>
>
> {-wI'} works the same, but the *translation* can be subtly different. It's
> typically "one who is" for a verb expressing a state or quality, and "one
> who does" for a verb expressing a more active concept. It's hard to use the
> English suffix "-er" for {-wI'} on a verb of quality like {tIn} "be big",
> but it's usually no problem to say something like "sleeper" for {QongwI'}.
>

I can only think of a few verbs in English that don't form acceptable nouns
with -er, like "have," "become," and "be." No one says "haver," "becomer,"
or "be-er." Nor "darer," "needer," "wanter, "fearer," etc., which seem to
form a pattern: "dare" can be an auxiliary verb, and the others function
similarly with an infinitive. Also we say "speaker" but never "sayer,"
except in compounds like soothsayer, and "healer" but not "curer." It would
be interesting to find out if there are Klingon verbs that don't form
acceptable nouns with {-wI'}.

Adjectives sometimes form collective nouns directly in English, like "the
old." (I think you'd just say {qanwI'pu'} in Klingon, since I know of no
collective noun for it.) Otherwise, it's indirect, like "one who is old,"
"old one," "oldster," "oldie," etc.

As for adding {-wI'} to Klingon verbs expressing a state or quality, are
there canon examples? I thought so, but so far I can't find any, except
ones with an intervening {-moH}, which don't count.

~mIp'av
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161228/061050bd/attachment.htm>