tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 01 14:07:24 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: ja'chuq explained (was: chetvI' yIHuvmoH)
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: ja'chuq explained (was: chetvI' yIHuvmoH)
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 14:03:36 -0700
lab charghwI':
> I'll add to this that so far as I know, Okrand has confirmed
> (at one of the qep'a'mey, I believe) only ONE case of what
> appears to possibly be a verb plus suffix actually being a
> separate verb root: lo'laH.
>
> He had to do it. Otherwise, he could never use {lo'laH}
> adjectivally, since {-laH} is not a suffix you can put on a
> verb when it is used adjectivally, as in the term "valuable
> information".
>
> De' lo'laH vInobta', qar'a'?
>
> In all other cases, unless Okrand reveals something else to us
> he has not yet revealed, the words which appear to be verbs
> plus suffixes really are verbs plus suffixes. You can't bend
> the rules for suffix order if you want to add a lower numbered
> type of verb suffix. You can't otherwise treat these words as
> anything different than just verbs with suffixes.
The interesing verb I wonder about is <roSHa'moH> - "paralyze". This
appears to be <roS> + <-Ha'> + <-moH>, but the meaning makes NO sense.
<roS> is "lick", and I cannot for the life of me make "cause to unlick"
into "paralyze". They're both in KGT, btw.
pagh