Could someone be so kind as to remind me, whether we can add the {-chu'} to a be-verb which is used as an adjective ? For example can we say {chab 'eychu'} for "a perfectly delicious pie" ? qunnoq
On 8/8/2017 11:35 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Could someone be so kind as to remind me, whether we can add the {-chu'} to a be-verb which is used as an adjective ?
For example can we say {chab 'eychu'} for "a perfectly delicious pie" ?
We've only seen rovers (not including *-Qo'*) on adjectival verbs. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
hmm, I see.. So I guess the only way to say "a perfectly delicious pie" is something like {'eychu'bogh chab}, right ? qunnoq On 8 Aug 2017 6:37 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/8/2017 11:35 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Could someone be so kind as to remind me, whether we can add the {-chu'} to a be-verb which is used as an adjective ?
For example can we say {chab 'eychu'} for "a perfectly delicious pie" ?
We've only seen rovers (not including *-Qo'*) on adjectival verbs.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
In Power Klingon {-chu’} is described as a qualifying suffix which "indicates action is performed absolutely properly." In other words, it’s used on action verbs. Adjectival verbs (which Okrand calls “qualities”) are states of being, not actions, e.g. {Doq} “be red”. To turn a quality into an action you need to add a suffix, i.e. {-moH} “cause” or {-choH} “become”. {'eychu'bogh chab} doesn’t work because {'ey} “be good/delicious/tasty” is also an adjectival verb – even with {-bogh} – and doesn’t take {-chu’}. But what’s wrong with {chab ‘eyqu’} for your "perfectly delicious pie"? If you’re trying to say that the pie is perfectly made, use another verb like {vut” “cook, prepare (food)”, {Qev} “stew”, {mIQ} “deep-fry”, etc. For food or music, you can also use an idiom: (KGT 84): Food also resembles music in that if it affects one in an especially positive way--that is, if the food particularly satisfies the eater--one may say {DuQ Soj} (“The food stabs him/her). Thus {muDuQqu’ chab} “the pie really stabs me”. And since {Duq} “stab” *is* an action verb you can probably say {muDuQchu’ chab} meaning the same thing. While we’re on the topic, some examples of {DuQ} with suffixes: cheDuQchugh mareghbe''a' Prick us, do we not bleed? TKW ghIq QavwI'chaj DuQchu' qeylIS betleH chaHDaq SIStaHvIS negh 'Iw Then Kahless's bat'leth pierced the last of them, showered with the soldiers' blood. PB tIqDu'Daj DuQqu'meH qeylIS ma'veq cha' 'etlhmey jop [translation not available] PB chablIj yItIv! --Voragh From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of mayqel qunenoS hmm, I see.. So I guess the only way to say "a perfectly delicious pie" is something like {'eychu'bogh chab}, right ? qunnoq On 8 Aug 2017 6:37 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name<mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote: On 8/8/2017 11:35 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: Could someone be so kind as to remind me, whether we can add the {-chu'} to a be-verb which is used as an adjective ? For example can we say {chab 'eychu'} for "a perfectly delicious pie" ? We've only seen rovers (not including -Qo') on adjectival verbs. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/8/2017 11:59 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
In Power Klingon {-chu’} is described as a qualifying suffix which "indicates action is performed absolutely properly." In other words, it’s used on action verbs. Adjectival verbs (which Okrand calls “qualities”) are states of being, not actions, e.g. {Doq} “be red”. To turn a quality into an action you need to add a suffix, i.e. {-moH} “cause” or {-choH} “become”.
{'eychu'bogh chab} doesn’t work because {'ey} “be good/delicious/tasty” is also an adjectival verb – even with {-bogh} – and doesn’t take {-chu’}.
I don't think Okrand was trying to make the distinction between actions and states here. He chose the word /action/ instead of /verb/ because he's speaking to the layman. I think *'eychu'bogh chab* is perfectly legal. There is an instance of *-chu'* on a quality verb in /paq'batlh:/ *qatlh Sutamchu' tlhIH*/Why are you all silent?/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
We’ve had this discussion before. This is a case where we must agree to differ. I was unaware of the apparently unique paq’batlh example. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. But how is {Sutamchu'} different from {Sutamqu'}? You’re either quiet or you’re not. I suppose in context there’s an implied action or effort: keeping or forcing yourselves to be quiet {tam} under the circumstances, though I might have said {qatlh SutamtaH}. Of course, this is poetry and could be word play – like everything in the paq’batlh! - but at least it shows the pattern is possible… though extremely rare. (I vaguely remember another example, but can’t think of it at the moment.) --Voragh From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of SuStel On 8/8/2017 11:59 AM, Steven Boozer wrote: In Power Klingon {-chu’} is described as a qualifying suffix which "indicates action is performed absolutely properly." In other words, it’s used on action verbs. Adjectival verbs (which Okrand calls “qualities”) are states of being, not actions, e.g. {Doq} “be red”. To turn a quality into an action you need to add a suffix, i.e. {-moH} “cause” or {-choH} “become”. {'eychu'bogh chab} doesn’t work because {'ey} “be good/delicious/tasty” is also an adjectival verb – even with {-bogh} – and doesn’t take {-chu’}. I don't think Okrand was trying to make the distinction between actions and states here. He chose the word action instead of verb because he's speaking to the layman. I think 'eychu'bogh chab is perfectly legal. There is an instance of -chu' on a quality verb in paq'batlh: qatlh Sutamchu' tlhIH Why are you all silent? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 8/8/2017 12:39 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
But how is {Sutamchu'} different from {Sutamqu'}? You’re either quiet or you’re not.
*tamqu'* means either /be very quiet/ or /be QUIET (emphasized)./ *tamchu'* means /be perfectly quiet./ There are shades of being quiet; it is not all or nothing. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
There's an acoustics research facility in Minnesota, Orfield Laboratories, which is famous for having the quietest room on Earth. It's used for testing products to see how much noise they make, and there are no echoes because the walls and floor and ceiling absorb all sound. In the absence of other sounds, occupants become overwhelmingly aware of the sounds their own body is making, and don't hear the soft echoes they subconsciously use to orient themselves as they move around. Most people can't stay in there longer than 20 minutes; the record is only 45 minutes. If there was ever situation that called for using {tamchu'} (or even {tamchu'qu'}), that's it. On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:50 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/8/2017 12:39 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
But how is {Sutamchu'} different from {Sutamqu'}? You’re either quiet or you’re not.
*tamqu'* means either *be very quiet* or *be QUIET (emphasized).* *tamchu'* means *be perfectly quiet.* There are shades of being quiet; it is not all or nothing.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/8/2017 1:05 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
There's an acoustics research facility in Minnesota, Orfield Laboratories, which is famous for having the quietest room on Earth. It's used for testing products to see how much noise they make, and there are no echoes because the walls and floor and ceiling absorb all sound. In the absence of other sounds, occupants become overwhelmingly aware of the sounds their own body is making, and don't hear the soft echoes they subconsciously use to orient themselves as they move around. Most people can't stay in there longer than 20 minutes; the record is only 45 minutes. If there was ever situation that called for using {tamchu'} (or even {tamchu'qu'}), that's it.
The claims that people can't last more than 45 minutes in one of those rooms, or that there is a record, are just urban legend. https://youtu.be/mXVGIb3bzHI https://youtu.be/GMfcIG4rA38 -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
voragh:
But what’s wrong with {chab ‘eyqu’} for your "perfectly delicious pie"?
The reason which led me to ask about the {chab 'eychu'}, was that I was under the impression that the {-chu'}, was more emphatic than the {-qu'}. Luckily, after reading this thread I understood the difference between them. Thanks ! qunnoq jan puqloD On 8 Aug 2017 8:23 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/8/2017 1:05 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
There's an acoustics research facility in Minnesota, Orfield Laboratories, which is famous for having the quietest room on Earth. It's used for testing products to see how much noise they make, and there are no echoes because the walls and floor and ceiling absorb all sound. In the absence of other sounds, occupants become overwhelmingly aware of the sounds their own body is making, and don't hear the soft echoes they subconsciously use to orient themselves as they move around. Most people can't stay in there longer than 20 minutes; the record is only 45 minutes. If there was ever situation that called for using {tamchu'} (or even {tamchu'qu'}), that's it.
The claims that people can't last more than 45 minutes in one of those rooms, or that there is a record, are just urban legend.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 12:14 -0400, SuStel wrote:
On 8/8/2017 11:59 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
In Power Klingon {-chu’} is described as a qualifying suffix which "indicates action is performed absolutely properly." In other words, it’s used on action verbs. Adjectival verbs (which Okrand calls “qualities”) are states of being, not actions, e.g. {Doq} “be red”. To turn a quality into an action you need to add a suffix, i.e. {-moH} “cause” or {-choH} “become”.
{'eychu'bogh chab} doesn’t work because {'ey} “be good/delicious/tasty” is also an adjectival verb – even with {-bogh} – and doesn’t take {-chu’}.
I don't think Okrand was trying to make the distinction between actions and states here. He chose the word /action/ instead of /verb/ because he's speaking to the layman. I think *'eychu'bogh chab* is perfectly legal.
There is an instance of *-chu'* on a quality verb in /paq'batlh:/ *qatlh Sutamchu' tlhIH*/Why are you all silent?/
Not used by Okrand in a sentence, but another "be"-verb example is lolchu'. - DloraH
participants (5)
-
DloraH -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel