tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 19 10:05:43 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ja'chuq explained (was: chetvI' yIHuvmoH)
ja' charghwI':
>> So {ja'chuq} *is* a simple verb with a suffix, and not a fancier verb
>> that just looks that way...
>
>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.
I think that in the message where he said this, he also promised to say
something later about {ja'chuq}. He apparently never has done that, but
the description in TKD seems adequate to me.
-- ghunchu'wI'