[tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: tIw

mayqel qunenoS mihkoun at gmail.com
Sun Dec 3 00:01:08 PST 2017


Ed Bailey:
> known grammar rules preclude a rover after a VS9

Is there really such a rule ? I admit that meaning-wise it wouldn't make
sense using a rover after a type-9 verb suffix. But is there really a
specific rule which prohibits that ?

~ nI'ghma

On Dec 3, 2017 06:13, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> It seems neither {tIw} nor {vang} should be negated in this case. What
>> needs negating is the causation expressed by {-mo'}, but known grammar
>> rules preclude a rover after a VS9 so it can't be negated that way, nor is
>> there any known adverbial that can do it. The same could happen with {-meH}
>> when purpose is what needs to be negated. Maybe something like:
>> {muvangmoHbe' tIwmeH laHwIj} "My capacity for reacting emotionally does not
>> me to act."
>>
>
> ​My solution: introduce a higher-level clause and negate that. {jItIwmo'
> jIvang net tu'be'.} "One does not observe that I acted because I was
> emotional." ​(Or perhaps less literally "It is not the case that I acted
> because I was emotional", which sounds a little like a formal logic
> textbook.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171203/3ef8f874/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list