tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 01 07:31:38 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: prefix trick verbs et al.

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: prefix trick verbs et al.
• Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:30:52 EDT

One of my very first posts to this list was about the prefix trick and how I 
thought it was a really bad idea.  I have since changed my mind (a la 
charghwI' [1993/06]) and now I think it's pretty good.
Along the same lines, after a recent post by SuStel pointing out that my bare 
imperative of a stative verb should have been with -'eghmoH, I realized that 
it's a change of state caused by the subject, thus it *should* be as he said.  
I had originally simply translated literally from English.  But now I have a 
personally satisfying *reason* to use it besides just "that's the way it's 
done".  

I should be able to answer a lot of my own questions soon, but questions 
dealing with the legitimacy of canon (i.e., perceived errors) I can't answer 
myself.  Voragh has been most helpful in this regard.

lay'tel SIvten

Haghlu'meH QaQ jajvam

• Prev by Date: Re: prefix trick verbs
• Next by Date: Re: models of excellent language use
• Previous by thread: Re: prefix trick verbs
• Next by thread: Skype
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level