tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 25 09:08:01 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: family suffixes
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: family suffixes
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:32:19 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from McReynolds on Sun, 20Apr 1997 20:44:31 -0700 (PDT))
>Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 20:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
>From: McReynolds <[email protected]>
>
>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.
Wait, it's in the KCD, now that I think of it. Again, I can't check; I'm
not going to be at my home PC until next week.
~mark