[Tlhingan-hol] {-be'} and {-qu'} with type 7 and 9 verb suffixes

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv]

I have no problem with rovers and Type 7, but Type 9 is, to my mind, gibberish with a rover. It describes the category of grammatical function of a verb. Negate it and you've removed the descriptor of the function of the verb in the sentence. Intensify it and you might as well intensify which letter of the alphabet a word starts with, or intensify how many syllables it has. It doesn't make sense. 

You can visualize whatever you like, but it doesn't communicate anything. 

It's an idea probably worth running by Maltz, but don't be surprised if Okrand gives you a puzzled look and starts muttering about {SIv} again. 

Sent from my iPad
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv

> On Oct 27, 2015, at 10:19 PM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> 
> I don’t remember ever seeing this idea before.  Your suggestions of what they might mean are not implausible. It seems very odd to reverse the semantic meaning of a type-9, and we’ve never seen it in canon, but that doesn’t mean it could never happen. I’m constructing words and trying to feel what they might mean to me, and how else I might express that meaning.
> 
> ?Heghpa’be’ qama’ mejlaH ‘avwI’. = yIntaHvIS qama’ ratlhnIS ‘avwI’.
> ?choQaHchughbe’ jIHegh. = choQaHbe’chugh jIHegh ‘ej choQaHchugh jIHegh.
> ?DaneH’a’be’? = DaneHbe’’a’? – already a question we don’t know how to answer with HIja’ or ghobe’, but if {DaneH’a’be’} is valid I’ll bet the answer is the opposite of {DaneHbe’’a’}.
> ?malaDtaHvISbe’ = ... I can’t make it mean something different from malaDbe’taHvIS.
> 
> Of yours, I think -chughqu’ for if and only if is the biggest stretch.  I’d get only _IF_  ... which now that I put it that way is momspeak (assuming your mom isn’t a mathematician) for iff.
> 
> I imagine that if the idea were put to Maltz—who is known to be in Germany this week—that he’d wrinkle his nose and say that such things sounded like something a professor or a rental car contract might say, not normal conversational tools.  That would explain why we’ve never seen such things in canon. ;-)
> 
> Such constructions won’t mean anything to other Klingon speakers, but it’s one of the most interesting, “What if Klingon worked this way?” posts I’ve seen in a long time.  You could write it up in more detail for submission to the reboot of HolQeD that we seem to be organizing in another thread.
>  
> - Qov
> 
> 
> 
>  
> From: Michael Kúnin [mailto:netzakh at yahoo.com] 
> Sent: October 27, 2015 16:39
> To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> Subject: [Tlhingan-hol] {-be'} and {-qu'} with type 7 and 9 verb suffixes
>  
> While the usage of these rovers with main verbs and with type 2 suffixes or {-laH} is well attested, it occurred to me that nothing explicitly prevents {-be'} and {-qu'} from being added to ANY verb suffix. If this is possible, this would create quite interesting constructions.
>  
> For example:
>  
> {-chughbe'} "not if" = "regardless of" ?
> {-chughqu'} "intensively if" = "if and only if" ?
> {-pa'be'} "not before" = "after" ?
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151027/ea8438dc/attachment.html>