On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:47 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

I am wondering whether the addition of the {-wI'} on be-verbs, functions differently from the way it does on non be-verbs.

{-wI'} works the same, but the *translation* can be subtly different. It's typically "one who is" for a verb expressing a state or quality, and "one who does" for a verb expressing a more active concept. It's hard to use the English suffix "-er" for {-wI'} on a verb of quality like {tIn} "be big", but it's usually no problem to say something like "sleeper" for {QongwI'}.

I can only think of a few verbs in English that don't form acceptable nouns with -er, like "have," "become," and "be." No one says "haver," "becomer," or "be-er." Nor "darer," "needer," "wanter, "fearer," etc., which seem to form a pattern: "dare" can be an auxiliary verb, and the others function similarly with an infinitive. Also we say "speaker" but never "sayer," except in compounds like soothsayer, and "healer" but not "curer." It would be interesting to find out if there are Klingon verbs that don't form acceptable nouns with {-wI'}.

Adjectives sometimes form collective nouns directly in English, like "the old." (I think you'd just say {qanwI'pu'} in Klingon, since I know of no collective noun for it.) Otherwise, it's indirect, like "one who is old," "old one," "oldster," "oldie," etc.

As for adding {-wI'} to Klingon verbs expressing a state or quality, are there canon examples? I thought so, but so far I can't find any, except ones with an intervening {-moH}, which don't count.

~mIp'av