[tlhIngan Hol] 'ar in "to be" constructions

[Will Martin]

Good analysis.

From my perspective, part of the ignorance is over whether meta-number words (like {Hoch} {‘op} and {‘ar}) grammatically placed in a position appropriate for an adjectivally applied stative verb following a noun have not been explicitly categorized as adjectives, since they are clearly not verbs (as other adjectives are) and cannot, by all indications, be used as verbs as most pronouns can.

This is basically a very small group of highly exceptional chuvmey. Either they can act as nouns, or they have noun homophones, and they are placed as either nouns or adjectival verbs, except when they are placed before the nouns, like numbers normally are, except when the numbers follow the noun, when they label the noun indicating a position in a sequential list…

TKD doesn’t come close to explaining all this, and canon gives us enough information for general usage without a lot of confidence for exceptional cases, such as this thread’s inquiry.

I’m rusty enough that I don’t remember with certainty whether Type 5 noun suffixes migrate to a pronoun following what would be the noun with Type 5 suffix (I think it does), but even if it does, we have no information on whether or not that rule would apply to these number-related words that are not adjectivally used stative verbs.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Jun 18, 2020, at 10:42 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 6/18/2020 10:18 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>> jIH:
>>> 1) jaghpu'na'ma' chaH qama' 'ar'e' ?
>>> or
>>> 2) jaghpu'na'ma' chaH qama''e' 'ar ?
>> I rethought this matter and decided that unless there is any Ca'Non
>> which suggests otherwise, to be placing the {-'e'} on the noun instead
>> of the question word {'ar}.
>> 
>> So, in the example above I'd finally choose to write {jaghpu'na'ma'
>> chaH qama''e' 'ar ?}.
>> 
>> First of all, there's something which seems wrong with writing
>> {jaghpu'na'ma' chaH qama' 'ar'e' ?}.
>> 
>> And second, the only question words in Ca'Non known to be able to bear
>> type-5 suffixes are the {'Iv} and {nuq}, since they occupy *exactly*
>> the same position as their answer. But (as far as I know), there is
>> nowhere written that the {'ar} functions similarly.
> nuqDaq also occupies the same location as the answer, but it's said to be a combination of nuq + -Daq, so it's already got a type 5 suffix and can't have another.
> 
> Lacking any instructions whatsoever on the mutual use of 'ar and type 5 suffixes, I too would not assume the suffix goes on 'ar. And this isn't limited to translations of "to be" sentences.
> 
> How many buildings do you work in?
> qachDaq 'ar bIvum?
> 
> But if we do receive word later that the suffix migrates to the 'ar, I will not be surprised or dismayed.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> 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/20200618/be802dbb/attachment-0016.htm>