tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 08 16:00:34 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
}} {-wI'} on sentences
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: }} {-wI'} on sentences
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 16:00:34 -0400
ghunchu'wI' juqaD:
> Is {-wI'} on a complete sentence really as bad as you make it
> out to be? I hope to hear from others regarding this.
vaj, qajang. =
I believe that Okrand intended {-wI'} to be used to turn a verb into =
a noun - i.e. the thing which is doing the action which the verb =
describes. In other words, the subject of said verb. Now, if the =
subject is explicitly stated by use of a prefix (even the null 3rd
person prefix), then {-wI'} is redundant, or worse, confusing. =
This does not preclude the use of other suffices:
{tlhutlhtaHwI'=3Da drunk; chISmoHwI'=3Dbleach} (no! not that again!) =
I might be convinced that the verb in question could have =
an object, but then it would seem an awful lot like a N-N =
construction, although not a "possessive" construction. =
vuDwIj Datlhob =91ej vInobta'.
gheyIl