[Tlhingan-hol] Interactions between verb suffixes

[mayql qunenoS]

Bellerophon, by saying {vebHa'} you mean <the previous> ?

qunnoq

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Bellerophon, modeler
<bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com> wrote:
> This whole discussion turned out to be both less and more than I was
> looking for in my original post. Less, because aside from a few canon
> sentences that were suggested, it adds no Maltz-approved examples or
> explanations, but more, because it's been such a productive
> discussion. I tried to digest this discussion while it was in
> progress, and pored over TKD 4.2. Unfortunately for students, this
> thread consists of twenty-odd messages, so perhaps someone can
> condense it for students of the language. That complications arise
> from use of multiple verb suffixes is obvious to even the beginning
> student: when I first started looking at TKD in 1985, this is one
> aspect of the language that made me doubt it was workable.
>
> Alan makes an important point that you can always sacrifice brevity
> for clarity. Even though some endings do not have verb equivalents
> (for instance, {-qang} <willing> has no closer verb equivalent than
> {neH}), I see no reason one cannot apply these suffixes to pronouns,
> such as {jIHqang} <I am willing>, so if {vImejqangmoH} is unacceptably
> ambiguous, one could say {vImejmoHmeH jIHqang} for <I am willing to
> make him leave> as opposed to <I make him willing to leave>.
>
> As for the general possibilities arising from multiple verb suffixes,
> there seem to be four: totally unambiguous, ambiguous except for
> context, ambiguous even in context, and nonsense. I think it is
> possible to categorize the interactions by the ordinal numbers of the
> suffixes, but that one has to take into account the meaning of the
> verb and how many arguments it has; that except for rovers {-qu'} and
> {-be'}, the ordering of suffixes, being grammatically ordained, has no
> effect on their scope; that although the wording in TKD consistently
> uses the term "subject," a suffix may apply to the agent of a verb
> followed by {-moH}, even though it happens to be the grammatical
> object; and finally that one should use context and common sense to
> see if there is a preferred interpretation.
>
> yIn Sengmo' qaStaHvIS jar vebHa' tetlhvam vIbuSQo'. DaH tlhIngan Hol
> vIHaDrupqa'.
>
> qastaHvIS DIS chu' jaj wa'DIch KLI, KAG je vImuvta' 'ej tlhIngan pong vIwIvta'.
>
> ~mIp'av
>
>
>
> --
> My modeling blog:          http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
> My other modeling blog:  http://bellerophon.blog.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol