tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 22 09:11:20 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: agentive -wI'
> > DughojmoHwI' - he/she who teaches you(singlular)
>
> I don't reject -wI' on prefixed verbs out of hand, but this one comes off
> as weird. Perhaps it's because I know I'd say ghojmoHwI'lI' for that
> sense. I would use -wI' on any combination of suffixes if I judged that
> construction to be the most effective means of communicating a given
> meaning.
HoHwI'wI' - "my killer". Did I hire him to kill someone else, or did someone
else hire him to kill me?
muHoHwI' - "one that kills me". Someone hired him to kill me.
Sure we could use -bogh. muHoHbogh nuv. And if there were more than one
killer, we could still use -bogh, but it could get messy.
taj lo'bogh 'ej muHoHbogh nuv nISwI' lo'bogh 'ej muHoHbogh nuv ghap Dalegh'a'?
And about adding other suffixes, a few days ago I used something like
Sovchu'be'wI' "those that don't completely know". We could use a -bogh, but
then we could always use a -bogh instead of -wI'. So why do we have -wI'?
(I'm at work so I don't have the message I'm quoting...)
"We admire it's speed then try to use it as a pack animal."
We could look at it as, "Why buy a 2Gig Pentium processor when all you're going
to do is plan text e-mail. You can do a lot more with such a machine."
DloraH