tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 05 05:18:35 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yIlaD
- From: HoD trI'Qal <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: yIlaD
- Date: Sun, 05 Jun 1994 17:11:34 -0400 (EDT)
>According to Nick NICHOLAS:
>...
>> =reH SuvtaH chaH wIja'chuqtaHchugh vaj wIch wIyInmoHtaH
>...
>> Will, did you mean "'e' wIja'chuq", or "DIja'chuq"?
>> --
>> Nick.
>
> I struggled with this one for a bit. My first point of
>confusion was over the use of {-chuq} with a verb that had a
>prefix that implied an object. This is not normal, but I
>decided that {ja'chuq} has become a separate verb from
>{ja'+chuq} since it has its own separate entry. Once past that,
[...]
>
>Did I miss anything?
>
>charghwI'
Yes, you did.
I would like to see some sort of proof that because a word has a seperate
entry in the KD, it is, in fact and indeed ' a seperate verb'. It is my
understanding that most of the verbs which have suffixes attached to them and
are listed in the KD are either there either as examples how to use that
suffix, or as exceptions to 'rules' (such as Qoch/Qochbe').
Where do you get proof that <ja'chuq> is anything more than just <ja'> + -chuq?
--HoD trI'Qal
tlhwD lIy So'