tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 11 16:51:27 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: suffixes -lu'wI'

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
• Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:50:54 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1

On 2/11/2010 1:32 PM, MorphemeAddict wrote:
> 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*.

And I can declare that the letter "a" is pronounced "sssdigweiosdoi," 
but no one is going to listen to me.

Show me one scrap of evidence that suggests that Klingons use {-wI'} to 
nominalize the object.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/

• References:
  • suffixes -lu'wI'
    • From: Andrà MÃller <[email protected]>
  • Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
    • From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>
  • Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
    • From: MorphemeAddict <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
• Next by Date: Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
• Previous by thread: Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
• Next by thread: RE: suffixes -lu'wI'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level