<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">I can see why *{loD Quchba’} might make more sense to an English speaker than a Klingon speaker:<br><br><div dir="ltr">Adverbs in English can apply to either a verb or an adjective, so I can both obviously win an argument and be the obviously happy guy who won it. Klingon has yet to reveal a grammatical method for applying an adverb to an adjective. I remember noticing this the first year I started studying Klingon.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">In Klingon, we have adverbial chuvmey that apply to verbs in a clause, but we lack a grammatical construction in which they could apply to a verb following a noun adjectivally, and we have verb suffixes with adverbial functionality (like {-ba’}), which, so far as we know, can apply to verbs and possibly pronouns (acting as the verb “to be”), but we have a rule (that has subsequently been modified by canon without explicit explanation) that suggests that the suffix can’t be used on a verb used adjectivally.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Of course, Okrand can wave his magic wand and change this at any time in any canon example or discussed rule change, and a person who breaks this rule will still be understood by an English speaker, and any non-native speaker of Klingon will have limited authority to tell them how certain we are that they are wrong, since the rule we’d point to has already been broken in canon, so we can’t be certain how much farther we’re allowed to break it, if at all.<br><div><br></div><div>Sent from my iPad</div></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Jul 30, 2020, at 9:19 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/29/2020 7:50 PM, De'vID wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CA+7zAmOcNF+YysM2REh1UTucEA=Q-=_nvGk-0+09h7yQLrqFHw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at
19:36, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>And when has it been proven that you can't use <b>-laH</b>
on an adjectivally acting verb? I don't think you can,
but I don't think it's ever been proven to be so.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div>Surely, this is forbidden by this sentence in TKD 4.4: "If
a Type 5 noun suffix is used (section 3.3.5), it follows the
verb, which, when used to modify the noun in this way, can
have no other suffix except the rover {-qu'} /emphatic/. The
Type 5 noun suffix follows {-qu'}."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We now know that the exception to the rule should really
have been something like "except any rover other than {Qo'}",
because we've seen {-be'} ({wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'} from PK) and
{-Ha'} ({Duj ngaDHa'} from KGT) used on a verb acting as an
adjective following a noun, but we have no reason to believe
that the rule as stated is wrong about non-rover suffixes.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Well, yes, but we've never been given such a rule, and have had
to suppose that this is the correct rule. I could imagine, for
instance, that the rule is to allow any suffix that doesn't stop
the verb from expressing pure quality. For instance, <b>loD
Quchba'</b><i> obviously happy man</i> seems to make perfect
sense. I'm not saying that's the rule, just that it's another
possible rule.</p>
<p>So when we got the <b>-be'</b> and <b>-Ha'</b> exceptions to
the adjectival rule, it's because we saw them in the wild, without
explanation. Those don't prove a rule; they just show us
additional allowed suffixes.</p>
<p>I take the point that there IS a rule given to us, but the rule
is clearly incomplete.<br>
</p>
<p>Anyway, even if we suppose Okrand added a <b>-laH</b> to an
adjectival verb before deciding he shouldn't have done that, what
sentence did he do that in that called for retrofitting? It would
have to be something already published, otherwise he wouldn't have
needed to retrofit it. The only sentences that came out before TKD
are the ones in <i>Star Trek III,</i> neglecting the clipped
one-word commands of the original Star Trek movie, and <b>lo'laH</b>
does not appear to be used in any of them.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>tlhIngan-Hol mailing list</span><br><span>tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</span><br><span>http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>