there is something which I probably understand, but I need to make certain. lets take a non be-verb: lotlh = to rebel lotlhwI' = the rebel now, lets take a be-verb: bel = be pleased belwI' = someone who is pleased Is my translation of the {belwI'} correct ? I am wondering whether the addition of the {-wI'} on be-verbs, functions differently from the way it does on non be-verbs. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 12/27/2016 9:47 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
lets take a non be-verb:
lotlh = to rebel lotlhwI' = the rebel
now, lets take a be-verb:
bel = be pleased belwI' = someone who is pleased
Is my translation of the {belwI'} correct ? I am wondering whether the addition of the {-wI'} on be-verbs, functions differently from the way it does on non be-verbs.
Your translation is correct. *-wI'* turns a verb into a noun which is the subject of the verb. Exactly how that translates into English is irrelevant. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:47 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I am wondering whether the addition of the {-wI'} on be-verbs, functions differently from the way it does on non be-verbs.
{-wI'} works the same, but the *translation* can be subtly different. It's typically "one who is" for a verb expressing a state or quality, and "one who does" for a verb expressing a more active concept. It's hard to use the English suffix "-er" for {-wI'} on a verb of quality like {tIn} "be big", but it's usually no problem to say something like "sleeper" for {QongwI'}. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:47 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I am wondering whether the addition of the {-wI'} on be-verbs, functions differently from the way it does on non be-verbs.
{-wI'} works the same, but the *translation* can be subtly different. It's typically "one who is" for a verb expressing a state or quality, and "one who does" for a verb expressing a more active concept. It's hard to use the English suffix "-er" for {-wI'} on a verb of quality like {tIn} "be big", but it's usually no problem to say something like "sleeper" for {QongwI'}.
I can only think of a few verbs in English that don't form acceptable nouns with -er, like "have," "become," and "be." No one says "haver," "becomer," or "be-er." Nor "darer," "needer," "wanter, "fearer," etc., which seem to form a pattern: "dare" can be an auxiliary verb, and the others function similarly with an infinitive. Also we say "speaker" but never "sayer," except in compounds like soothsayer, and "healer" but not "curer." It would be interesting to find out if there are Klingon verbs that don't form acceptable nouns with {-wI'}. Adjectives sometimes form collective nouns directly in English, like "the old." (I think you'd just say {qanwI'pu'} in Klingon, since I know of no collective noun for it.) Otherwise, it's indirect, like "one who is old," "old one," "oldster," "oldie," etc. As for adding {-wI'} to Klingon verbs expressing a state or quality, are there canon examples? I thought so, but so far I can't find any, except ones with an intervening {-moH}, which don't count. ~mIp'av
On Dec 28, 2016, at 12:25 AM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
As for adding {-wI'} to Klingon verbs expressing a state or quality, are there canon examples?
One occurs to me immediately. The Klingon Way, page 123: {reH Hegh yoHwI'pu''e'.} "Always it is the brave ones who die." -- ghunchu'wI'
participants (5)
-
Alan Anderson -
Ed Bailey -
ghunchu'wI'
-
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel