tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 11 10:41:21 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
- From: MorphemeAddict <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:32:18 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=gTeH3SqTCJkz/9n0zc4NoealQCpPDuUyZrVKsR9efR0=; b=EDUxyhQid7Q9v1MrzRCCCnrFP6nqKi8UpKXPfoOZKa8SGCJ6sNR2FJN6eqMDeU3GwU 6FKuNUEQ3KRJ2daOJcswe+ZutHymrqYdHIiC2oqbBQ+y3H5K2Bv+c337ll2oulWrsp5r gGka3cp6BKlokVy5ktP1SXVBPblXU4a+YmI4Q=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=eDqT+ytLiOmHlUKvmbHQMKlnTsLu+UxHPSRj9u4lxEVFprEFXB1kG1CO3edFHoDHac s+w+ACMgnqpuBKOakYOS0ptivBfq4s8/heOe4xUdqowUS3aS7s00Bftc8Mgx9t0vIoYr e1kpsVjr/ibkkir+PV235NwsY4e1xDpzJ9Oho=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Since they are (according to you) mutually incompatible, it's possible to
give them the meaning that André Müller suggests, namely the nominalization
of the *object*.
lay'tel SIvten
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/11/2010 8:03 AM, André Müller wrote:
> > Dear all, I always wondered how best to translate the word
> > "question". So far I always rephrased the sentence to avoid
> > constructing a lengthy nominal phrase involving the verbs {tlhob} or
> > {ghel} (both mean "to ask").
>
> There's your problem right there. Don't construct a lengthy nominal
> phrase. Rephrase with a simple verb.
>
> > Now, while looking through {ghIlghameS} I had an idea: As {-lu'}
> > means more or less "someone verbs" (with a change of A and P for the
> > pronominal prefixes), and {-wI'} means "someone who does" OR
> > "something which does", is it possible to create a patient
> > nominalization with {-lu'wI'}?
> >
> > So, does {tlhoblu'wI'} mean "that which is asked" (i.e. the question
> > or request)? I think, the word I found in {ghIlghameS} was something
> > like {leghbe'lu'wI'} = "the unseen", but I don't quite remember.
> >
> > Are such forms grammatical? Do we even have canon examples for this?
> > Do you think it's a nice way to say "question" or "request"?
>
> This is an old chestnut, and you won't find a consensus here. For my
> money, this is not valid. {-wI'} nominalizes the verb into the subject,
> but {-lu'} means the verb has no subject. The two are mutually
> incompatible.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
>
>
>
>