can lo'laH take -laH ?
There's the be-verb {lo'laH} defined as "be valuable". On "Newsgroup: Microsoft Network expert forum Date: Sunday, November 30, 1997 11:23 pm", as found in: http://klingon.wiki/En/Msn_1997-11-30, 'oqranD writes: *** Quote starts *** On the other hand, you're right about lo'laH be valuable. It is a simple verb in its own right (though it's an unusual two-syllable one), not the verb lo' use plus Type 5 suffix -laH can. It is likely that there is some sort of historical connection to the verb + suffix form, but, if so, it is just that – historical. *** Quote ends *** In this quote, {lo'laH} is being described as "not the verb lo' use plus Type 5 suffix -laH can", but a few words later we read "It is likely that there is some sort of historical connection to the verb + suffix form, but, if so, it is just that – historical." What I'm wondering is this: Does this kind of historical connection mean that we can't use the suffix -laH on the {lo'laH} ? If we wrote {lo'laHchoHlaH Dujvam} for "this ship is able to become valuable", would it be right or wrong ? ~ Qa'yIn
On 7/29/2020 7:38 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Does this kind of historical connection mean that we can't use the suffix -laH on the {lo'laH} ?
It means the opposite: since *lo'laH* is a multisyllabic root verb and not *lo' + -laH,* then *lo'laHlaH* should be fine. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Jul 29, 2020, at 7:38 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Does this kind of historical connection mean that we can't use the suffix -laH on the {lo'laH} ?
Regardless of its supposed etymology, {lo'laH} is a verb in its own right. Grammatically, it should accept suffixes just like any verb. The second syllable might have been a suffix at one time, but it’s just part of the word now. I suggest that {QongDaqDaq} is a relevant example. -- ghunchu'wI'
Keep in mind that {lo’laH} can’t take {-laH} as a suffix WHILE BEING USED AFTER A NOUN, ADJECTIVALLY for the same reason {lo’} can’t take {-laH} while it’s being used adjectivally, which is the boo-boo Okrand made which created the verb root {lo’laH} in the first place. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 29, 2020, at 11:15 AM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Jul 29, 2020, at 7:38 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Does this kind of historical connection mean that we can't use the suffix -laH on the {lo'laH} ?
Regardless of its supposed etymology, {lo'laH} is a verb in its own right. Grammatically, it should accept suffixes just like any verb. The second syllable might have been a suffix at one time, but it’s just part of the word now.
I suggest that {QongDaqDaq} is a relevant example.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/29/2020 11:56 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Keep in mind that {lo’laH} can’t take {-laH} as a suffix WHILE BEING USED AFTER A NOUN, ADJECTIVALLY for the same reason {lo’} can’t take {-laH} while it’s being used adjectivally, which is the boo-boo Okrand made which created the verb root {lo’laH} in the first place.
The word *lo'laH*/be valuable/ appears in the first edition of TKD (published 1985), but is not used in a sentence until TKW in 1996: *leghlaHchu'be'chugh mIn lo'laHbe' taj jej*/A sharp knife is nothing without a sharp eye./ It is used only one more time, in KGT in 1997: *lo'laHbe'; chetvI' chIm rur*/worthless as an empty torpedo tube./ In neither case is it used to modify a noun. Bearing that in mind, where do you get the story that he created *lo'laH* as a retrofit for an error? And when has it been proven that you can't use *-laH* on an adjectivally acting verb? I don't think you can, but I don't think it's ever been proven to be so. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:36, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
And when has it been proven that you can't use *-laH* on an adjectivally acting verb? I don't think you can, but I don't think it's ever been proven to be so.
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'}." 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. -- De'vID
On 7/29/2020 7:50 PM, De'vID wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:36, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
And when has it been proven that you can't use *-laH* on an adjectivally acting verb? I don't think you can, but I don't think it's ever been proven to be so.
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'}."
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.
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, *loD Quchba'*/obviously happy man/ seems to make perfect sense. I'm not saying that's the rule, just that it's another possible rule. So when we got the *-be'* and *-Ha'* 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. I take the point that there IS a rule given to us, but the rule is clearly incomplete. Anyway, even if we suppose Okrand added a *-laH* 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 /Star Trek III,/ neglecting the clipped one-word commands of the original Star Trek movie, and *lo'laH* does not appear to be used in any of them. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I can see why *{loD Quchba’} might make more sense to an English speaker than a Klingon speaker: 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. 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. 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. Sent from my iPad
On Jul 30, 2020, at 9:19 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/29/2020 7:50 PM, De'vID wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:36, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
And when has it been proven that you can't use -laH on an adjectivally acting verb? I don't think you can, but I don't think it's ever been proven to be so.
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'}."
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. 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, loD Quchba' obviously happy man seems to make perfect sense. I'm not saying that's the rule, just that it's another possible rule.
So when we got the -be' and -Ha' 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.
I take the point that there IS a rule given to us, but the rule is clearly incomplete.
Anyway, even if we suppose Okrand added a -laH 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 Star Trek III, neglecting the clipped one-word commands of the original Star Trek movie, and lo'laH does not appear to be used in any of them.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (5)
-
Alan Anderson -
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin