tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 01 10:03:01 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: }}} KLBC: wamwI'

• From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
• Subject: Re: }}} KLBC: wamwI'
• Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 09:03:01 -0500

Marc Ruehlaender writes:
>> lo'laH is irregular. It doesn't follow normal grammatical rules.
>
>all right. but can it still be 'can use' and can I
>add suffixes to lo'laH (other than -ghach) as I did
>in lo'moHlaH to mean 'cause to be valuable'?

Yes, {lo'laH} still can be "can use".  I'd rather it ONLY mean that, but I
must accept "be valuable" as a valid translation.  No, I don't think
{lo'moHlaH} can
mean "cause to be valuable".  Putting {-moH} in there has lost the essence
of {lo'laH}.  If we stretch a bit, we just might be able to consider
{lo'laH} a true verb and apply suffixes to it as a unit.  IF that's what we
want to do, I would understand {*lo'laHmoH} as "cause to be valuable".

-- ghunchu'wI'

• Prev by Date: Re: }} yoD Hov'a'
• Next by Date: Re[4]: }}} Dialects (was: Klingon paintball)
• Prev by thread: Re: }}} KLBC: wamwI'
• Next by thread: Re: }}} KLBC: wamwI'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level