Are there canon examples, with adverbs bearing the {-qu'} ? I know that at some adverbs we can place the {-Ha'}; but can we place the {-qu'} ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 11/30/2016 9:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Are there canon examples, with adverbs bearing the {-qu'} ?
I know that at some adverbs we can place the {-Ha'}; but can we place the {-qu'} ?
No, no examples. I remember at a *qep'a'* one year someone pointing out that Okrand had recently added *-Ha'* to an adverbial for the first time, and that this was novel to us. He seemed surprised that we thought you couldn't do that. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Okrand had recently added * -Ha'* to an adverbial for the first time
So, do we consider this to be for us a license to place {-Ha'}, to whichever adverbs we wish ? And where do we draw the line ? Why stop at the {-Ha'}, and not continue to other rovers as well ? If someone writes something which 'oqranD never wrote, we say "don't do it, it has no precedent". but if there is a precedent, why not act upon it ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 30 Nov 2016 4:18 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: On 11/30/2016 9:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: Are there canon examples, with adverbs bearing the {-qu'} ? I know that at some adverbs we can place the {-Ha'}; but can we place the {-qu'} ? No, no examples. I remember at a *qep'a'* one year someone pointing out that Okrand had recently added *-Ha'* to an adverbial for the first time, and that this was novel to us. He seemed surprised that we thought you couldn't do that. -- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/30/2016 12:28 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
Okrand had recently added *-Ha'* to an adverbial for the first time
So, do we consider this to be for us a license to place {-Ha'}, to whichever adverbs we wish ?
His general message has been, yes, adverbials can generally use *-Ha',* but there's no absolute guarantee that all of them can do it.
And where do we draw the line ? Why stop at the {-Ha'}, and not continue to other rovers as well ?
Because Okrand has specifically about and used only *-Ha'.* No other suffix has been used or even hinted at.
If someone writes something which 'oqranD never wrote, we say "don't do it, it has no precedent". but if there is a precedent, why not act upon it ?
Precedent and suggestion exists for *-Ha';* it does not exist for any other suffix. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:28 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
So, do we consider this to be for us a license to place {-Ha'}, to whichever adverbs we wish ?
And where do we draw the line ? Why stop at the {-Ha'}, and not continue to other rovers as well ?
See HolQeD volume 4, number 4, page 11.
http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1995-12-holqed-04-4.txt&q=%22negati... Klingonska Acadamien is a good resource for people who want to know everything Marc Okrand has written about the Klingon language. -- ghunchu'wI'
participants (4)
-
Alan Anderson -
Ed Bailey -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel