I agree this might happen in more progressive dialects or future varieties of Klingon. Hypothetically speaking, of course. Someday we might have forms like {jIQongneHbe'} - and I agree that it would perhaps be slot #2. In some natural languages it happened the same way: In Burmese the former verb <khyang> 'to wish, to desire' has become a grammatical verb suffix /-ʨʰin/ (pronounced [ʨʰɪ̃]) which just means 'want' and is sometimes just called "desiderative marker". Maybe also the suffix {-nIS} used to be a verb with the meaning 'must' in the past? We have no evidence for that. I wonder if some has already written a HolQeD article in the olden days. Of course this is all in-universe speculation about the language history of Klingon. But I find it very interesting too. - André 2016-11-08 12:55 GMT+01:00 kechpaja <kechpaja@comcast.net>:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:31:08AM +0100, De'vID wrote:
On 7 November 2016 at 10:21, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Actually, I'm pretty happy to be able to say now {latlh loD SoH net jalchugh, vaj qaHoH.}, but I would have preferred it be done with a different kind of suffix. But Okrand told us this weekend, that according to Maltz, we should have received nearly all of the existing suffixes - but there may be more, perhabs.
It would be very weird, at this point, to get any more (let's say, "modern {ta' Hol}") suffixes, considering the volume of canon we have. What are the chances that a commonplace suffix would fail to appear in important Klingon works such as {paq'batlh} and {Hamlet}?
I was under the impression that {Hamlet} wasn't actually canon — am I wrong about that?
At this point, we've seen a number of suffixes that can also be used as independant verbs, which suggests that the boundary between what's a suffix and what's a verb might be a bit blurrier in Klingon than in English. More concretely, I've been wondering if the verb {neH} might be on its way to being grammaticalized (especially since it's already in a special category as the only verb that can take a SAO without {'e'}). Maybe in some progressive dialects it's already there (I'd expect it to be type 2, but that isn't necessarily a given).
pItlh
-SapIr _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org