Hello tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI'pu :) I was wondering something about rovers: can -Qo’ be followed by -be’ and/or -qu’? (Not -Ha’ obviously) Rovers [...] do not have a fixed position in relation to the other suffixes following a verb but, instead, can come just about anywhere except following a type 9 suffix. Their position is determined by the meaning intended (TKD 4.3)Unlike -be’ the position of -Qo’ does not change: it occurs last, unless followed by a type 9 suffix. (TKD 4.3.) Does the 2nd statement intend to exclude just the type 1 to 8 suffixes from following -Qo’, or does it also ban other rovers (-be’ and -qu’) from coming after --Qo’? Because it could be interesting, if it is allowed, to express various degrees of refusal through it: leghQo’ : he refuses to see him (?) leghQo’qu' : he *absolutely* refuses to see him (?) leghQo’be’ : he does not refuse to see him (?) leghQo’be’qu’ : he really does not refuse to see him (perhaps it means he is eager to see him, and for this meaning we could use leghqangqu’) (?) leghQo’qu’be’ : he does not refuse categorically to see him Has this already been discussed somewhere else? What do you think? ghItlhjaj Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
On 2/14/2018 1:03 PM, demonchaux.aurelie wrote:
can -Qo’ be followed by -be’ and/or -qu’?
Has this already been discussed somewhere else?
It has been debated before on this list. There is no categorical evidence one way or the other. It follows the rules given and hasn't been contradicted, so you may as well use it if you think it'll get your point across. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I'm not really sure what a {-be'} or a {-qu'} would mean following {-Qo'} or one of the type 9 suffixes, but if you feel that doing so can improve a communication you are trying to do, try it out and see if others can understand what you are trying to say. Jeremy ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of demonchaux.aurelie <demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 12:03 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] Rovers and -Qo' Hello tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI'pu :) I was wondering something about rovers: can -Qo’ be followed by -be’ and/or -qu’? (Not -Ha’ obviously) 1. Rovers [...] do not have a fixed position in relation to the other suffixes following a verb but, instead, can come just about anywhere except following a type 9 suffix. Their position is determined by the meaning intended (TKD 4.3) 2. Unlike -be’ the position of -Qo’ does not change: it occurs last, unless followed by a type 9 suffix. (TKD 4.3.) Does the 2nd statement intend to exclude just the type 1 to 8 suffixes from following -Qo’, or does it also ban other rovers (-be’ and -qu’) from coming after --Qo’? Because it could be interesting, if it is allowed, to express various degrees of refusal through it: leghQo’ : he refuses to see him (?) leghQo’qu' : he *absolutely* refuses to see him (?) leghQo’be’ : he does not refuse to see him (?) leghQo’be’qu’ : he really does not refuse to see him (perhaps it means he is eager to see him, and for this meaning we could use leghqangqu’) (?) leghQo’qu’be’ : he does not refuse categorically to see him Has this already been discussed somewhere else? What do you think? ghItlhjaj Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
When using -Qo' to express refusal (rather than for a negative command), it makes as much sense to me as using -be'/-qu' after a volitional suffix: "I don't refuse to do it." / "I REFUSE to do it!" I would probably understand (imperative suffix) + -Qo'be' as "Don't refuse!", rather than as actually negating a negative imperative. -qu' makes more sense after a negative command: "DON'T do it!" Perhaps you'd say it if you had to repeat yourself (although I suspect at that point, jay' or some other curse would be more likely). Parent: yIHotQo'! ("Don't touch that!") (the child reaches for it) Parent: Qo'! yIHotQo'qu'! ("No! DON'T touch that!") I could see using -qu' on a type-9 suffix to emphasize a condition (Daleghchughqu' - "IF you see it", or perhaps even "IF AND ONLY IF you see it"), purpose or the like, though it does seem a bit unnatural to my ear; something you wouldn't hear very often. Philosophers, poets and logicians might be interested in negating subordinate clause markers, too, but it's probably more a case of tlhach mu'mey than a part of everyday speech. Mind, the fact that we haven't seen any of these in use does suggest none of these are all that common ... but then again, our corpus isn't large enough to consider a lack of evidence as evidence of absence. tobbe'lu'chughbe' qItbe'. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 06:12 To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Rovers and -Qo' I'm not really sure what a {-be'} or a {-qu'} would mean following {-Qo'} or one of the type 9 suffixes, but if you feel that doing so can improve a communication you are trying to do, try it out and see if others can understand what you are trying to say. Jeremy ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of demonchaux.aurelie <demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 12:03 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] Rovers and -Qo' Hello tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI'pu :) I was wondering something about rovers: can -Qo' be followed by -be' and/or -qu'? (Not -Ha' obviously) 1. Rovers [...] do not have a fixed position in relation to the other suffixes following a verb but, instead, can come just about anywhere except following a type 9 suffix. Their position is determined by the meaning intended (TKD 4.3) 2. Unlike -be' the position of -Qo' does not change: it occurs last, unless followed by a type 9 suffix. (TKD 4.3.) Does the 2nd statement intend to exclude just the type 1 to 8 suffixes from following -Qo', or does it also ban other rovers (-be' and -qu') from coming after --Qo'? Because it could be interesting, if it is allowed, to express various degrees of refusal through it: leghQo' : he refuses to see him (?) leghQo'qu' : he *absolutely* refuses to see him (?) leghQo'be' : he does not refuse to see him (?) leghQo'be'qu' : he really does not refuse to see him (perhaps it means he is eager to see him, and for this meaning we could use leghqangqu') (?) leghQo'qu'be' : he does not refuse categorically to see him Has this already been discussed somewhere else? What do you think? ghItlhjaj Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
I could see using -*qu'* on a type-9 suffix to emphasize a condition ( *Daleghchughqu'* - "*IF* you see it", or perhaps even "*IF AND ONLY IF *you see it"), purpose or the like, though it does seem a bit unnatural to my ear; something you wouldn't hear very often.
It would sound unnatural because it's ungrammatical:
Rovers are verb suffixes which do not have a fixed position in relation to the other suffixes following a verb but, instead, can come just about anywhere except following a Type 9 suffix.
- TKD You could break the rule anyway for rhetorical effect, and in informal or dire situations the grammatical error could probably be ignored. But you'd lose points on your Klingon 101 midterms.
participants (5)
-
David Holt -
demonchaux.aurelie -
Felix Malmenbeck -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel