tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 08 14:51:11 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC I'm confused (was: Re: Transitivity)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC I'm confused (was: Re: Transitivity)
- Date: Mon, 8 May 95 17:51:09 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Steve Weaver" at May 8, 95 1:11 pm
According to Steve Weaver:
>
> Mon, 8 May 1995 09:10:59 -0400 ghItlh *'Iwvan *ghunchu'wI' je:
>
> >On Mon, 8 May 1995 08:18:13 -0400, ghunchu'wI' said:
> >
> >> {jIHoH} means "I kill." This also implies "I am a killer."
> <...rest snipped...>
>
> Would these not require the {-wI'} suffix (one who is, one who does, thing
> which does) ?? ie, {jIHoH} "I kill", {jIHoHwI'} "I am a killer". Much like
> the "person" ending in ASL to make "Bake" into "Baker" (a person who bakes)
> ??
Almost. Generally, a nominalized verb will not have a verbal
prefix. "I am a killer" would be {HoHwI' jIH}, not {jIHoHwI'}.
When you are nominalizing a verb with {-wI'} or {ghach}, you
are turning the action into a noun, and the subject or object
tends not to go with it, except perhaps as a compound noun,
like (wince) {Ha'DIbaHSopwI'}, which is ugly, but probably the
way you'd say, "carnivore".
> vay' yIHub Hoch 'ej Hoch tIHub vay'
> - DumaS
> -------------------------------------------------
> vIta'pu'be' !!! tlhIngan ghaH *Bart Simpson*'e'
> Steve Weaver [email protected]
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |