Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Adjective suffixes
Somewhere (TKD I suppose) it's written that the only suffixes following a verb used as an adjective can be the negation suffixes {-be', -Ha'} and the intensifier {-qu'}. I think it's logical that both can occur together. So I have no doubts that you can say {Duj tInqu'be'} with the intended meaning. But other suffixes are excluded, do the answer to question 2 is no. It is easily understood, but ungrammatical. - André On 13 Dec 2016 08:18, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: I've been meaning to ask.. 1st question: Can we have on a be-verb which is used adjectively, more than one rover-type suffix ? Can we write {Duj tInqu'be'} for "not very big ship" ? 2nd question: Can we have on a be-verb which is used adjectively, a non-rover suffix ? Can I write {Duj tInba'} for "obviously big ship" ? qunnoH jan puqloD _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ok, thanks ! however, it is a pity {Duj tInba'} isn't allowed. it would be wonderful to be able to say "the obviously big ship". qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 13 Dec 2016 10:46 am, "André Müller" <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
Somewhere (TKD I suppose) it's written that the only suffixes following a verb used as an adjective can be the negation suffixes {-be', -Ha'} and the intensifier {-qu'}. I think it's logical that both can occur together. So I have no doubts that you can say {Duj tInqu'be'} with the intended meaning.
But other suffixes are excluded, do the answer to question 2 is no. It is easily understood, but ungrammatical.
- André
On 13 Dec 2016 08:18, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been meaning to ask..
1st question: Can we have on a be-verb which is used adjectively, more than one rover-type suffix ? Can we write {Duj tInqu'be'} for "not very big ship" ?
2nd question: Can we have on a be-verb which is used adjectively, a non-rover suffix ? Can I write {Duj tInba'} for "obviously big ship" ?
qunnoH jan puqloD _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/13/2016 3:46 AM, André Müller wrote:
Somewhere (TKD I suppose) it's written that the only suffixes following a verb used as an adjective can be the negation suffixes {-be', -Ha'} and the intensifier {-qu'}. I think it's logical that both can occur together. So I have no doubts that you can say {Duj tInqu'be'} with the intended meaning.
But other suffixes are excluded, do the answer to question 2 is no. It is easily understood, but ungrammatical.
/TKD/ only describes using *-qu'* in this way. Further canonical examples have shown us *-be'* and *-Ha'.* None has ever shown us multiple suffixes, though I would have no problem accepting *Duj tInqu'be'* for /not very big ship./ Although we have never seen any other verb suffixes, I would not at all be surprised to discover that type 6 verb suffixes are allowed, as in mayqel's **Duj tInba'*/obviously big ship/ or **Duj Dojbej*/certainly impressive ship/ or **Duj HoSghajchu'*/all-powerful ship/ or **Duj pujlaw'*/apparently weak ship./ But until such time as Okrand does this, these suffixes are off-limits. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I think SuStel is right, although I could find only one example: 'ejyo' luch rurbe'qu' tlhIngan Duj luch. Klingon starship design is vastly different from Starfleet technology. SP3 --Voragh On Behalf Of SuStel Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 8:33 AM On 12/13/2016 3:46 AM, André Müller wrote: Somewhere (TKD I suppose) it's written that the only suffixes following a verb used as an adjective can be the negation suffixes {-be', -Ha'} and the intensifier {-qu'}. I think it's logical that both can occur together. So I have no doubts that you can say {Duj tInqu'be'} with the intended meaning. But other suffixes are excluded, do the answer to question 2 is no. It is easily understood, but ungrammatical. TKD only describes using -qu' in this way. Further canonical examples have shown us -be' and -Ha'. None has ever shown us multiple suffixes, though I would have no problem accepting Duj tInqu'be' for not very big ship. Although we have never seen any other verb suffixes, I would not at all be surprised to discover that type 6 verb suffixes are allowed, as in mayqel's *Duj tInba' obviously big ship or *Duj Dojbej certainly impressive ship or *Duj HoSghajchu' all-powerful ship or *Duj pujlaw' apparently weak ship. But until such time as Okrand does this, these suffixes are off-limits. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
De'vID:
yapbe''a' {tInba'bogh Duj}?
In order to get the intented meaning through, it is definitely sufficient. the reason which made me ask about the {Duj tInba'}, was because I was searching for an alternate way to describe this meaning in klingon. However, yes, the {tInba'bogh Duj} is perfectly capable of expressing the same meaning too. qunnoH jan puqloD On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
I think SuStel is right, although I could find only one example:
'ejyo' luch rurbe'qu' tlhIngan Duj luch.
Klingon starship design is vastly different from
Starfleet technology. SP3
--Voragh
On Behalf Of SuStel Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 8:33 AM
On 12/13/2016 3:46 AM, André Müller wrote:
Somewhere (TKD I suppose) it's written that the only suffixes following a verb used as an adjective can be the negation suffixes {-be', -Ha'} and the intensifier {-qu'}. I think it's logical that both can occur together. So I have no doubts that you can say {Duj tInqu'be'} with the intended meaning.
But other suffixes are excluded, do the answer to question 2 is no. It is easily understood, but ungrammatical.
TKD only describes using -qu' in this way. Further canonical examples have shown us -be' and -Ha'. None has ever shown us multiple suffixes, though I would have no problem accepting Duj tInqu'be' for not very big ship.
Although we have never seen any other verb suffixes, I would not at all be surprised to discover that type 6 verb suffixes are allowed, as in mayqel's *Duj tInba' obviously big ship or *Duj Dojbej certainly impressive ship or *Duj HoSghajchu' all-powerful ship or *Duj pujlaw' apparently weak ship. But until such time as Okrand does this, these suffixes are off-limits.
--
SuStel
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Dec 13, 2016 16:05, "Steven Boozer" <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote: I think SuStel is right, although I could find only one example: * 'ejyo' luch rurbe'qu' tlhIngan Duj luch. * Klingon starship design is vastly different from Starfleet technology. SP3 But {rur} isn't acting adjectivally here. In fact, it's a transitive verb. -- De'vID
Am 13.12.2016 um 15:32 schrieb SuStel:
/TKD/ only describes using *-qu'* in this way. Further canonical examples have shown us *-be'* and *-Ha'.* None has ever shown us multiple suffixes, though I would have no problem accepting *Duj tInqu'be'* for /not very big ship./
Agreed. Using both -qu' and -be' is confirmed in TKD.
Although we have never seen any other verb suffixes, I would not at all be surprised to discover that type 6 verb suffixes are allowed,
I think TKD is very clear on that: "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'." 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. Next, TKD states that type 6 suffixes "show how sure the speaker is about what is being said." 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. So finally, I think that a socalled *Duj tInlaw'* is really a {DujHey tIn}, *Duj tInbej* is really a {Dujna' tIn}. If you insist on focussing on the verb, say {tInlaw'bogh Duj}. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 12/13/2016 11:05 AM, Lieven wrote:
Am 13.12.2016 um 15:32 schrieb SuStel:
/TKD/ only describes using *-qu'* in this way. Further canonical examples have shown us *-be'* and *-Ha'.* None has ever shown us multiple suffixes, though I would have no problem accepting *Duj tInqu'be'* for /not very big ship./
Agreed. Using both -qu' and -be' is confirmed in TKD.
Although we have never seen any other verb suffixes, I would not at all be surprised to discover that type 6 verb suffixes are allowed,
I think TKD is very clear on that: "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'."
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.
It doesn't say that only *-qu'* may be used when there is a type 5 noun suffix on it; it says that an adjectival verb can have no suffix besides *-qu', *and any type 5 suffix for the noun goes at end of the adjectival verb. The wording is confusing on this point, but unambiguous. Since Okrand has obviously violated the only*-qu'* rule many times, it is clearly non-operative, though its sense of restriction remains with us since it's not clear exactly what suffixes /are/ allowed on such verbs.
Next, TKD states that type 6 suffixes "show how sure the speaker is about what is being said." 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.
So you wouldn't allow words like *Quchlaw'*/he seems to be happy/ or *tujbej*/it is definitely hot/? Of course you would, yet these are no more "actions" than the verbs in *tlhIngan Quch* /happy Klingon /and *QuQ tuj*/hot engine./ 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 *-qu',*" then got a few more that made sense. Without information from Okrand, we cannot conclude with any certainty that unattested suffixes may be used.
So finally, I think that a socalled *Duj tInlaw'* is really a {DujHey tIn}, *Duj tInbej* is really a {Dujna' tIn}.
If you insist on focussing on the verb, say {tInlaw'bogh Duj}.
**Duj tInlaw'* means a ship that is apparently big; *DujHey tIn* means a big thing that might be a ship. Not the same thing. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 13.12.2016 um 17:16 schrieb SuStel:>> I think TKD is very clear on that:
"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'."
suffix on it; it says that an adjectival verb can have no suffix besides *-qu',
Yes, that's how I also see it.
Since Okrand has obviously violated the only*-qu'* rule many times, it
please, examples.
So you wouldn't allow words like *Quchlaw'*/he seems to be happy/ or *tujbej*/it is definitely hot/? Of course you would, yet these are no more "actions" than the verbs in *tlhIngan Quch* /happy Klingon /and *QuQ tuj*/hot engine./
I disagree. {Quchlaw' loD} is a phrase/sentence "Verb+Subject". The "action" is being happy. What is he doing? He is being happy. {loD Quchlaw'} is not a phrase/sentence that can stand alone. There is no "action" in the sense of something happening. It's a noun plus a descriptive word. Actually, in English it's the same: "red man" is something else than "the man is red".
**Duj tInlaw'* means a ship that is apparently big; *DujHey tIn* means a big thing that might be a ship. Not the same thing.
This is your interpretation here. At this point, nobody knows what it really "means". It was you who taught me not to assume that things may mean something just because you think that's what they mean before having canon rules about them. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 12/13/2016 1:39 PM, Lieven wrote:
Am 13.12.2016 um 17:16 schrieb SuStel:>> I think TKD is very clear on that:
Since Okrand has obviously violated the only*-qu'* rule many times, it
please, examples.
Qu'vatlh!!!! Do I have to do this AGAIN?! I JUST posted examples last week. Here are the *&@@#$% initial examples of each suffix. I will not locate additional examples. *Dujmey tInqu'*/very big ships/ (TKD) *wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'*/ten useless tribbles/ (PK) *Duj ngaDHa'*/unstable vessel/ (KGT)
So you wouldn't allow words like *Quchlaw'*/he seems to be happy/ or *tujbej*/it is definitely hot/? Of course you would, yet these are no more "actions" than the verbs in *tlhIngan Quch* /happy Klingon /and *QuQ tuj*/hot engine./
I disagree. {Quchlaw' loD} is a phrase/sentence "Verb+Subject". The "action" is being happy. What is he doing? He is being happy.
{loD Quchlaw'} is not a phrase/sentence that can stand alone. There is no "action" in the sense of something happening. It's a noun plus a descriptive word.
The difference is between a sentence and an adjective, not between an action and a description. Besides, the explanation of type 6 suffixes doesn't say anything about ACTIONS being qualified, OR sentences; it simply says "these suffixes show how sure the speaker is about what is being said." An adjectival verb is something being said; qualifying it with a type 6 suffix meets that criterion. The only question is whether it's allowed at all due to the original restriction placed on adjectival verbs, which Okrand has occaionally chipped away at, but only VERY slightly.
**Duj tInlaw'* means a ship that is apparently big; *DujHey tIn* means a big thing that might be a ship. Not the same thing.
This is your interpretation here. At this point, nobody knows what it really "means".
It was you who taught me not to assume that things may mean something just because you think that's what they mean before having canon rules about them.
Thank you, I was making that point at YOU. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 13.12.2016 um 19:49 schrieb SuStel:
Qu'vatlh!!!! Do I have to do this AGAIN?! I JUST posted examples last week.
No, my dear beloved friend, I thought you were talking about other suffixes than those *&@@#$% examples you had already posted.
*Dujmey tInqu'*/very big ships/ (TKD) *wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'*/ten useless tribbles/ (PK) *Duj ngaDHa'*/unstable vessel/ (KGT)
This may be an exception from the "nothing else than -qu'"-rule, but these suffixes are all Rovers.
Thank you, I was making that point at YOU.
Yes, indeed. That's what I said. And I was now turning it back to YOU, because this time, YOU were making assumptions about a non existing rule. :-P -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
participants (6)
-
André Müller -
De'vID -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel