tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 03 08:57:34 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tuH vs tuHmoH
- From: "Marc Paige"<[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: tuH vs tuHmoH
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:42:16 -0500
ghItlh SuStel:
>>>
...Here's how I would say this:
pIm'a' <tuH> <tuHmoH> je?
Now, this isn't really quite asking what you mean. You want to know if
<tuHmoH> counts as a verb root, because it's found in TKD.
<<<
HIja'! What about this sentence:
<tuH> <tuHmoH> je Daqel. mu'mey pIm bIH'a'
Are there any noted exception word pairs in TKD where the -moH (or any
other suffix for that matter) word is treated as a separate word? <tuQ> and
<tuQmoH> were the original words that I was trying to use as I explained in
an earlier post. I can see that this is a difficult part of the language. I
remember all the discussion concerning "be" on a verb, verbs of motion, and
the more recent stative issues.
>>>
We don't know. My opinion is that {tuHmoH} is just {tuH} + {-moH}, added
for
our convenience. It's not a new verb.
<<<
qatlho'. pabpo'pu' latlh, tujang tuneH'a'
---------------
SI'IluD
wa'Hu' jIboghbe'