tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 20:37:09 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: family suffixes
jatlh ~mark:
>
> Hmm. Can't say about this one. At least you didn't say "*nal", which
> would have been more intuitive. BUT Okrand (in TKW, if I recall correctly)
> tells us that -nal is a bound morpheme, which doesn't occur on its own.
> NOTE: the previous sentence was straight out of my fuzzy memory: someone
> please double-check.
I also recall this, let me check... a quick scan of TKW turned up
nothing, but I know its there somewhere. I just flipped through really
fast looking for a bold-print {nal} and didn't find anything. However,
I am absolutely positive that you quoted Okrand correctly, regardless of
source.
-mIqIraH