tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 15 09:18:40 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {n/ng-a-'/gh/H}
>Date: Sun, 14 May 1995 11:31:18 -0400
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: [email protected]
>On Fri, 12 May 1995 10:59:32 -0400, "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]> said:
>> We know of know word "nga'". We know of a verb "nga'chuq", BUT
>> we have no evidence that "?nga'" is productive on its own (anymore).
>> The verb we have for "mate" is "ngagh", NOT "?nga'", which should
>> only be used in "nga'chuq" (which should probably be used most of
>> the time anyway.)
>Ah, but do we *have* the verb {ngagh}? Has Okrand written it down for us?
>Last I checked, the only source for this verb was the PK tape, and there
>was some disagreement as to whether the initial was dental or velar and
>whether the final was voiced or unvoiced.
Yes, we do. See HolQeD 3:3, page 20, wherein Okrand confirms the spelling
of "mate with" as "ngagh."
~mark