[tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: yItlhHa'

[Daniel Dadap]

>> On Mar 25, 2019, at 08:44, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 13:27, Daniel Dadap <daniel at dadap.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> > On Mar 25, 2019, at 04:51, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > So the rule isn't that only {-qu'} is allowed, but that only rovers are allowed.)
>> 
>> Did {-Qo'} show up as well? I guess that wouldn’t make sense semantically, so I expect it wouldn’t. I wonder if that (and maybe other rover-only things) why {-Ha'} and {-Qo'} are classiford with the true rovers {-qu'} and {-be'}, even though they don’t really rove.
> 
> You're right, it's only {-qu'}, {-Ha'}, and {-be'} (AFAIK). I'd forgotten that {-Qo'} also counts as a rover.

Are there any canon examples of {-Qo'} being used together with a type two verb suffix? It semantically seems to fit with {-qang}, at least, so I wonder if it “roved” from historically being a type 2 to being something else. I guess {SuvvIpQo' SuvwI'na'} would make sense as something useful to say, so maybe not.

I was originally thinking it wouldn’t make sense, semantically, for a stative verb acting like an adjective to take {-Qo'}, since it seems volitiony without officially being a volition suffix, and volition with a state seems weird, but I’m not totally sure any more. Can a person {'IQQo'}, for example? Assuming one can, {'IQQo'bogh HoD} still seems like it makes more sense than *{HoD 'IQQo'}, though, if we are to hypothesize that rovers generally may follow a stative-verb-acting-as-an-adjective.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190325/8a9bd1a1/attachment-0015.htm>