tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 06 23:44:34 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yIlaD
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: yIlaD
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 11:41:42 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "HoD trI'Qal" at Jun 5, 94 5:11 pm
Sorry for not abbreviating the lead-in on this, but I can't see
a way to do it and make sense...
According to HoD trI'Qal:
>
> >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'
Guess I was wrong. It happens, you know.
charghwI'