tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 02 19:20:01 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: E pluribus unum
>Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 14:16:43 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: [email protected] (Steve Weaver)
>>>ME: wa' law'choH moj
>>>WestphalWz: Look at the simple:
>>>WestphalWz: law'choH wa' [Doch]
>>>~mark: OOf! I like it. I'm annoyed I didn't think of that myself.
>Looking back on my notes, I think I came close with "law'choHvo' wa'", but
>that was discarded early in my arguments with myself.
It's well you did. I'm sure you thought along these lines:
What's the verb? law', right? OK. What's this ?law'choHvo' word thingy?
Well, law' is a verb, ok... -choH is a verb suffix. Great, so far so good!
But wait, -vo' is a *noun* suffix; that can't be. The only time noun
suffixes can go on verbs is tgype 5 noun suffixes on verbs used
adjectivally, and this is obviously not an adjectival verb (it couldn't
have -choH on it then). So this sentence must be ungrammatical.
You *did* realize that, right? WestphalWz's sentence is far better. Do
you see why?
~mark