tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 31 22:10:38 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - handle: <'uchmeHwI' > or <'uchmeHghach> ????
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC - handle: <'uchmeHwI' > or <'uchmeHghach> ????
- Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 01:11:04 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 30 Aug 1996 01:40:50 -0700 "A.Appleyard"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Chet Braun <[email protected]> wrote;-
> > Trying to find a way of saying 'handle'. I think TKD says that you can't
> > turn a verb with a suffix, <'uchmeH> into a noun unless you use <-ghach>
> > suffix. So instead of <'uchmeHwI'>, which should mean "thing for the purpose
> > of holding", would <'uchmeHghach> convey the idea of a handle? Of course
> > they may already be a word for handle that I'm not aware of...
>
> {'uchmeHwI} and {'uchmeHghach} each have two class 9 verb suffixes, which is
> illegal. If they mean anything, they mean "thing for the purpose of being a
> holder" and "the condition of being for the purpose of holding". Best put on
> the list for Okrand that we need a word for "handle".
Or figure a different way to express the meaning. Depending
on the circumstances, it could be:
Daq 'uchlu'
Place which is held
'uchlu'meH Daq lugh
Correct place in order that one holds it
ghopvaD 'ay' chenmoHlu'
Section formed for the hand
Or you could just point to the thing you want carried and if the
idiot doesn't know to look for the handle, let him carry it
however he can.
charghwI'