<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/13/2016 11:05 AM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:2ec78cf4-709e-39c2-48dc-7da903b68c81@gmx.de"
type="cite">Am 13.12.2016 um 15:32 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">/TKD/ only describes using *-qu'* in this
way. Further canonical
<br>
examples have shown us *-be'* and *-Ha'.* None has ever shown us
<br>
multiple suffixes, though I would have no problem accepting *Duj
<br>
tInqu'be'* for /not very big ship./
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agreed. Using both -qu' and -be' is confirmed in TKD.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Although we have never seen any other verb
suffixes, I would not at all
<br>
be surprised to discover that type 6 verb suffixes are allowed,
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think TKD is very clear on that:
<br>
"If a Type 5 noun suffix is used, it follows the verb, which, when
used to modify the noun in this way, can have no other suffix
except the rover -qu'."
<br>
<br>
This still does leave some space for interpretation, like "no
other suffix, only when Type 5 suffix is used"(?) - but I think
that if one could have been allowed to add oter suffixes, there
would be an example.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>It doesn't say that only <b>-qu'</b> may be used when there is a
type 5 noun suffix on it; it says that an adjectival verb can have
no suffix besides <b>-qu', </b>and any type 5 suffix for the
noun goes at end of the adjectival verb. The wording is confusing
on this point, but unambiguous.</p>
<p>Since Okrand has obviously violated the only<b>-qu'</b> rule many
times, it is clearly non-operative, though its sense of
restriction remains with us since it's not clear exactly what
suffixes <i>are</i> allowed on such verbs.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote cite="mid:2ec78cf4-709e-39c2-48dc-7da903b68c81@gmx.de"
type="cite">
Next, TKD states that type 6 suffixes "show how sure the speaker
is about what is being said."
<br>
I read this is focussed on the verb of the OVS-phrase, the
"action". When used as an adjective, the verb is no longer doing
an "action" in the phrase, and besides, it fits the object or
subject slot.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>So you wouldn't allow words like <b>Quchlaw'</b><i> he seems to
be happy</i> or <b>tujbej</b><i> it is definitely hot</i>? Of
course you would, yet these are no more "actions" than the verbs
in <b>tlhIngan Quch</b> <i>happy Klingon </i>and <b>QuQ tuj</b><i>
hot engine.</i></p>
<p>The restriction on adjectival verb suffixes is a somewhat
arbitrary one, probably because lots of suffixes make no sense on
such verbs. We started with "only <b>-qu',</b>" then got a few
more that made sense. Without information from Okrand, we cannot
conclude with any certainty that unattested suffixes may be used.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote cite="mid:2ec78cf4-709e-39c2-48dc-7da903b68c81@gmx.de"
type="cite">
So finally, I think that a socalled *Duj tInlaw'* is really a
{DujHey tIn}, *Duj tInbej* is really a {Dujna' tIn}.
<br>
<br>
If you insist on focussing on the verb, say {tInlaw'bogh Duj}.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><b>*Duj tInlaw'</b> means a ship that is apparently big; <b>DujHey
tIn</b> means a big thing that might be a ship. Not the same
thing.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>