tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 18 22:49:43 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Use of {-wI'} on nouns (was Re: Quote)

Philip Newton ([email protected])

From: Philip Newton <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Use of {-wI'} on nouns (was Re: Quote)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:54:45 +0100
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Organization: very little
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:22:45 -0500, "Scott Willis"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steven Boozer" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 10:48 AM
> Subject: RE: Quote
> 
> > ngabwI':
> > >We have a noun {jonwI'} "engineer"
> 
> > Voragh:
> > Then we have a better word:  {chamwI'} "technician", someone who
> > works with technology {cham}.
> 
> And I know of {De'wI'} "computer".
> 
> Now my question: Did {-wI'} become a noun suffix while I wasn't
> looking?  (One that apparently means "someone or something that
> works with X"?) Has this been stated as a general rule, or is it
> still up to MO to decide what nouns can take {-wI'}?

I'd file it with {QongDaq} "bed" as words that we can't create ourselves
(in this case, it's a kind of compound noun, but the first component is
otherwise known only as a verb).

Philip

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Use of {-wI'} on nouns (was Re: Quote)
  - From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

References:
- Re: Quote
  - From: "Scott Willis" <[email protected]>
- RE: Quote
  - From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
- Use of {-wI'} on nouns (was Re: Quote)
  - From: "Scott Willis" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: taH (v)
Next by Date: Klingon WOTD: tuv (v)
Prev by thread: Use of {-wI'} on nouns (was Re: Quote)
Next by thread: Re: Use of {-wI'} on nouns (was Re: Quote)
Index(es):