[tlhIngan Hol] {-lIvIS}

[SuStel]

On 12/23/2016 8:53 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> mIp'av:
> > As for rovers, does anyone even have a
> > definite idea what effect {-qu'} or {-be'} would
> > have following {-taH} ?
>
> lets write an example..
>
> {jIvumtaH} "I am continuously working".
>
> {jIvumtaHqu'} "I am very much continuously working". I would 
> understand this as someone trying to emphasize the "continuously", 
> though I can't say that in my mind there is much difference between 
> the {-taH} and the {-taHqu'}. after all there are 24 hours in the day, 
> right ? If someone says "I am working continuously", then the maximum 
> I can understand is those 24 hours. I don't see how the {-qu'}, can 
> add more to this.

At qep'a' wejDIch a bunch of people were playing a song-naming game, and 
they'd been playing it for a long time. Others of us were wondering why 
they didn't come join us in speaking Klingon. I walked up to them and 
said: *SubomlI'be'. SubomtaHqu'.*


> {jIvumtaHbe'} "I am not continuously working". I think this does make 
> sense, and its ok to use it.

Absolutely. Furthermore, we've seen a number of examples in which the 
*-be'* suffix seems to have a larger scope than just the immediately 
preceding element. So *jIvumtaHbe'* might mean /I am not continuously 
working/ *(**jI-vum-[taH-be']**)* but it also might mean /I am not 
working continuously/*([jI-vum-taH]-be').*


> now, if your original question was with regards to rovers being placed 
> after the {-taH} in the {-taHvIS}, then I think that the resulting 
> sentence wouldn't make sense.

I can see the problem. **jIvumtaHqu'vIS* /while I am CONTINUOUSLY 
working/—as opposed to what? All /while/s in Klingon are continuous. 
**jIvumtaHbe'vIS*/while I am not-continuously working/—except all 
/whiles/ in Klingon are continuous.

I have no problem with *-neS,* though, if you really want to put it 
there. **jIvumtaHneSvIS*/while, sir, I am working./ I agree, however, 
with the opinion that you're more likely to put the *-neS* on the main 
clause, not on the dependent clause. I suppose you could be thoroughly 
obsequious and say **jIvumtaHneSvIS HuchwIj DaHIjneS'a'*///would you 
please deliver my money while I am working, sir?/ (That's a very loose 
translation.) I imagine there are cultural reasons you wouldn't do this, 
but I don't claim this as evidence against the practice.

Ultimately, I think *-taH* and *-vIS* remain separate suffixes; there is 
no suffix **-taHvIS,* and there's no evidence of movement toward there 
being one. *-taH* is simply a requirement of using *-vIS,* and I /think/ 
that the *-taH* must be unmodified by rovers to make sense.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161223/aab98f3a/attachment-0017.htm>