Can I use verb type 9 suffix {-wI'}, after other suffixes ?
So far, I considered verb type 9 suffix {-wI'), as a suffix, one could use on a verb, which verb didn't have a preceding suffix. And I really don't know why I had that impression. But recently, at another thread, I saw someone using the verb type 9 suffix {-wI'}, on a verb which had another type of verb suffix, preceding the {-wI'}. So, I want to ask ; is this allowed ? Can I place the verb type 9 suffix, on a verb which has another verb suffix, preceding ? Of course the question would be : "why would you want to ?". Right now I can't think of a reason. However I remember that the person who had used it this way, had actually created a construction which made perfect sense, and was appropriate for the occasion. mop Hurgh qunnoq QeH SeHlu'bogh Hol 'oH tlhIngan Hol'e'
On 6/27/2016 9:40 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Can I place the verb type 9 suffix, on a verb which has another verb suffix, preceding ?
Sure, why not?
Of course the question would be : "why would you want to ?". Right now I can't think of a reason.
On Facebook recently someone used *taybe'wI'*/someone uncivilized./ But I can think of more complicated words. Here's one: *HIvqangbe'qa'wI'*/someone unwilling to attack again./ I would hesitate to include any type 1, 6, or 8 suffixes on a *-wI'* verb. 1, because I'm not sure about how the reflexive nature of the word interacts with *-wI'* (but I'd probably accept something like *HIvchuqwI'*/those who attack each other/). 6, because there are analogous noun suffixes to do the same thing, except *-chu',* which seems more important to a noun's fundamental meaning. 8, because *-neS* would be more appropriate on the main verb of the sentence, not tucked away inside a noun. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jatlh SuStel: I would hesitate to include any type 1, 6, or 8 suffixes on a *-wI'* verb. 1, because I'm not sure about how the reflexive nature of the word interacts with *-wI'* (but I'd probably accept something like *HIvchuqwI'** those who attack each other*). 6, because there are analogous noun suffixes to do the same thing, except *-chu',* which seems more important to a noun's fundamental meaning. 8, because *-neS* would be more appropriate on the main verb of the sentence, not tucked away inside a noun. I'd think Type 1 would generally work, but only for actions that can be reflexive. And {HIvchuqwI'} would make sense to me used as a singular noun, knowing that it's a word like {'er'In}: even if {megh'an} isn't mentioned, I know there must be one. {yayta' wa' HIvchuqwI' neH} makes sense, doesn't it? Of course {-chu'} works with {-wI'}, or else ghunchu'wI' would vanish in a puff of grammar, and I expect everyone would accept {HubneSwI'} and {HIvneSwI'} as about the only exceptions to your caveat about Type 8. But for other suffixes plus {-wI'}, I'd expect the the likeliest cause of raised eyebrows would be {-lu'}. There isn't a consensus on this, though one of my fondest wishes is for Maltz to confirm my opinion on the matter. -- mIp'av yergho bu''a' baHwI' IKAV chuch 'etlh My modeling blog: http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/ My other modeling blog: http://bellerophon.blog.com/
Yes, there's no problem with it. If the semantics still make sense after nominalizing a verb with {-wI'} I see no problem. You could describe someone who is willing to learn Klingon as a {ghojqangwI'}, and someone who is afraid to speak a {jatlhvIpwI'}. And so on... we also have a few examples of canonical words involving {-wI'} and a verbal suffix: * {QaDmoHwI' DIr} = towel (lit.: dry-maker skin) * {Say'moHwI' tlhagh} = soap (lit.: clean-maker fat) * {Sut HabmoHwI'} = iron (lit.: clothing smooth-maker) I see no reason to think that this shouldn't work with other suffixes just as well. What's arguable not possible (but we don't know for sure, I think) is using {-wI'} on a verb with prefixes. I would probably not accept ?{muparHa'wI'} as a word for 'someone who likes me'. - André 2016-06-27 15:40 GMT+02:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
So far, I considered verb type 9 suffix {-wI'), as a suffix, one could use on a verb, which verb didn't have a preceding suffix. And I really don't know why I had that impression.
But recently, at another thread, I saw someone using the verb type 9 suffix {-wI'}, on a verb which had another type of verb suffix, preceding the {-wI'}.
So, I want to ask ; is this allowed ? Can I place the verb type 9 suffix, on a verb which has another verb suffix, preceding ?
Of course the question would be : "why would you want to ?". Right now I can't think of a reason. However I remember that the person who had used it this way, had actually created a construction which made perfect sense, and was appropriate for the occasion.
mop Hurgh qunnoq QeH SeHlu'bogh Hol 'oH tlhIngan Hol'e' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Personally, I love love love using -wI' after I've added another suffix (or two). The rovers -be' and -qu' are obvious choices, but I like the subtlety of meaning you can achieve with some other types and combinations. Consider the difference between a HoHwI' and a HoHqa'wI'. Or even the warrior who has training and is a SuvlaHwI' and the seasoned veteran who is a Suvta'wI'. Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen :: author :: publisher :: psychologist :: hypnotist :: klingonist ::: Campbell Award nominee :::: Hugo Award nominee :::: Nebula Award nominee ::: www.lawrencemschoen.com ::: www.papergolem.com ::: www.hypnosis4writers.com
Such nouns are not very common – so don’t go crazy - but they are allowed. Here are a few more I could find: ngaQHa'moHwI' key (TNK) bochmoHwI' sycophant, flatterer, one who tries to curry favor by flattering a superior (slang) KGT chenmoHwI' creator, maker KGT (e.g. Hew chenmoHwI' sculptor) najmoHwI' lullaby (n) KGT ngaDmoHwI' stabilizer (component of a ship) KGT wovmoHwI' light (device) KBoP (n) (e.g. wovmoHwI' moQ light bulb (TNK) yIntaHwI' living (person), the living PB jubbe'wI' mortal (person) (n) PB Heghpu'wI' dead (person), the dead PB yoymoHwI' inverter (device) (n) pIlHa'wI' "unmotivated one" (i.e. one who is apathetic) SaHHa'wI' one who is not concerned (i.e. one who is apathetic)) quvHa'wI' dishonored one From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of André Müller Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 8:55 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Can I use verb type 9 suffix {-wI'}, after other suffixes ? Yes, there's no problem with it. If the semantics still make sense after nominalizing a verb with {-wI'} I see no problem. You could describe someone who is willing to learn Klingon as a {ghojqangwI'}, and someone who is afraid to speak a {jatlhvIpwI'}. And so on... we also have a few examples of canonical words involving {-wI'} and a verbal suffix: * {QaDmoHwI' DIr} = towel (lit.: dry-maker skin) * {Say'moHwI' tlhagh} = soap (lit.: clean-maker fat) * {Sut HabmoHwI'} = iron (lit.: clothing smooth-maker) I see no reason to think that this shouldn't work with other suffixes just as well. What's arguable not possible (but we don't know for sure, I think) is using {-wI'} on a verb with prefixes. I would probably not accept ?{muparHa'wI'} as a word for 'someone who likes me'. - André 2016-06-27 15:40 GMT+02:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>>: So far, I considered verb type 9 suffix {-wI'), as a suffix, one could use on a verb, which verb didn't have a preceding suffix. And I really don't know why I had that impression. But recently, at another thread, I saw someone using the verb type 9 suffix {-wI'}, on a verb which had another type of verb suffix, preceding the {-wI'}. So, I want to ask ; is this allowed ? Can I place the verb type 9 suffix, on a verb which has another verb suffix, preceding ? Of course the question would be : "why would you want to ?". Right now I can't think of a reason. However I remember that the person who had used it this way, had actually created a construction which made perfect sense, and was appropriate for the occasion. mop Hurgh qunnoq QeH SeHlu'bogh Hol 'oH tlhIngan Hol'e' _______________________________________________ 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
SuStel, Andre Muller, Lawrence M. Schoen and Voragh thank you ! On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Such nouns are not very common – so don’t go crazy - but they are allowed. Here are a few more I could find:
ngaQHa'moHwI' key (TNK)
bochmoHwI' sycophant, flatterer, one who tries to curry
favor by flattering a superior (slang) KGT
chenmoHwI' creator, maker KGT (e.g. Hew chenmoHwI' sculptor)
najmoHwI' lullaby (n) KGT
ngaDmoHwI' stabilizer (component of a ship) KGT
wovmoHwI' light (device) KBoP (n)
(e.g. wovmoHwI' moQ light bulb (TNK)
yIntaHwI' living (person), the living PB jubbe'wI' mortal (person) (n) PB
Heghpu'wI' dead (person), the dead PB
yoymoHwI' inverter (device) (n)
pIlHa'wI' "unmotivated one" (i.e. one who is apathetic)
SaHHa'wI' one who is not concerned (i.e. one who is apathetic))
quvHa'wI' dishonored one
From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of André Müller Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 8:55 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Can I use verb type 9 suffix {-wI'}, after other suffixes ?
Yes, there's no problem with it. If the semantics still make sense after nominalizing a verb with {-wI'} I see no problem. You could describe someone who is willing to learn Klingon as a {ghojqangwI'}, and someone who is afraid to speak a {jatlhvIpwI'}. And so on... we also have a few examples of canonical words involving {-wI'} and a verbal suffix:
* {QaDmoHwI' DIr} = towel (lit.: dry-maker skin)
* {Say'moHwI' tlhagh} = soap (lit.: clean-maker fat)
* {Sut HabmoHwI'} = iron (lit.: clothing smooth-maker)
I see no reason to think that this shouldn't work with other suffixes just as well.
What's arguable not possible (but we don't know for sure, I think) is using {-wI'} on a verb with prefixes. I would probably not accept ?{muparHa'wI'} as a word for 'someone who likes me'.
- André
2016-06-27 15:40 GMT+02:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
So far, I considered verb type 9 suffix {-wI'), as a suffix, one could use on a verb, which verb didn't have a preceding suffix. And I really don't know why I had that impression.
But recently, at another thread, I saw someone using the verb type 9 suffix {-wI'}, on a verb which had another type of verb suffix, preceding the {-wI'}.
So, I want to ask ; is this allowed ? Can I place the verb type 9 suffix, on a verb which has another verb suffix, preceding ?
Of course the question would be : "why would you want to ?". Right now I can't think of a reason. However I remember that the person who had used it this way, had actually created a construction which made perfect sense, and was appropriate for the occasion.
mop Hurgh qunnoq QeH SeHlu'bogh Hol 'oH tlhIngan Hol'e' _______________________________________________ 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 27 June 2016 at 15:40, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
But recently, at another thread, I saw someone using the verb type 9 suffix {-wI'}, on a verb which had another type of verb suffix, preceding the {-wI'}.
Recently? You mean all those times ghunchu'wI' replied to you, you didn't notice that his name was a word? -- De'vID
De'vID :
Recently? You mean all those times ghunchu'wI' replied to you, you didn't notice that his name was a word?
hmm.. I knew his name was a word, but until you mentioned it, I hadn't actually made the connection that it is verb+suffix type 6+suffix type 9. thanks for pointing this out ! On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:48 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27 June 2016 at 15:40, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
But recently, at another thread, I saw someone using the verb type 9 suffix {-wI'}, on a verb which had another type of verb suffix, preceding the {-wI'}.
Recently? You mean all those times ghunchu'wI' replied to you, you didn't notice that his name was a word?
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 27.06.2016 um 15:40 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
So far, I considered verb type 9 suffix {-wI'), as a suffix, one could use on a verb, which verb didn't have a preceding suffix.
A friend of mine calls himself {SoplaHtaHwI'} "the one who can keep eating forever" and I've never seen a problem with that. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On Monday 27 Jun 2016 18:45:05 Lieven wrote:
A friend of mine calls himself {SoplaHtaHwI'} "the one who can keep eating forever" and I've never seen a problem with that.
Why am I imagining some smarmy {jabwI'} talking to him like this (if I didn't mess up this sentence): {tagha' qaH, wa' wejwa' bIr yuch langqu' DaneHneS'a'?} (If you missed the reference check Monty Python's Meaning of Life movie, specifically- Mr. Creosote.) -- mupwI'.
participants (9)
-
André Müller -
De'vID -
Ed Bailey -
Jeremy Silver -
Lawrence M. Schoen -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel