tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 09 00:56:53 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC I'm confused (was: Re: Transitivity)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC I'm confused (was: Re: Transitivity)
- Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 03:55:37 -0400
>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)?
"I am a killer" would be /HoHwI' jIH/, not */jIHoHwI'/. I have a real
problem
with verb prefixes on nominalized verbs, even though my distaste comes
more from -ghach'd verbs than ones with -wI'. And this comes from
way before Okrand discussed -ghach; ask charghwI'. He and I had this
conversation at the qep'a' last year.
It's sort of like the difference in English, between, say, "I like you
running" and
"I like your running." The first means, only during the time when you are
engaged
in the act of running, do I like you. The second means something like, I
like
the way you run. The difference between /qettaHghachlIj/ and
*/bIqettaHghach/.
Does this make any sense?
--Holtej