tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 03 16:21:02 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lItHa'
Fri, 2 Jun 1995 ghItlh peHruS:
> chaq wa' mu' 'oH lItHa''e'
> vaj mawavbe'nIS
Here, I would use {wI'-} instead of {ma-} just for the sake of clarity.
> qaStaHchugh wanI'vam mojaq 'oHbejbe' <Ha'>vam'e'
Be careful with your placement of {-be'}; as a rover, it negates the
preceeding syllable:
{wIwavbe'nIS} (we need to not divide it)
{wIwavnISbe'} (we do not need to divide it)
{mojaq 'oHbejbe'} (it is not undoubtedly a suffix)
{mojaq 'oHbe'bej} (it is certainly not a suffix)
> vaj pagh ta'Ha' 'oH
> DaH mu' lItHa' pojlu' rIntaH qar'a'
I would say {lItHa' mu'} (the word of {lItHa'}) instead.
> peHruS
> Perhaps <lItHa'> is one word; thus, we must not separate it.
> If this is the case, <Ha'> certainly is not just a suffix.
> Then, it is undoing nothing at all.
> Then, does this conclude the analysis of <lItHa'>?
chaq bIlugh. chaq wa' mu' 'oH <lItHa'>'e'. <-Ha'> lughajbogh DIpmey
puS'e' tu'lu' 'ej bIH wIwavlaw'laHbe'. <bIghHa'> <matHa'> je bIH
chovnatlhmey'e'.
yoDtargh