tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 21 19:23:24 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ja'chuq explained (was: chetvI' yIHuvmoH)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ja'chuq explained (was: chetvI' yIHuvmoH)
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:24:06 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
Did I miss something? I don't remember {ja'chuq} getting
explained. I remember {lo'laH} being explained, but not
{ja'chuq}. Please enlighten me.
charghwI' 'utlh.
On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:20:40 -0700 (PDT) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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'