tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 24 00:31:07 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Use of Verbs + types + -wI'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Use of Verbs + types + -wI'
- Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 03:30:36 -0500
In a message dated 96-12-23 10:45:02 EST, ~mark writes:
<< >tlhutlhlu'wI'mey ghajbe' ghojmoHwI' pe''eghwI' je
>
>mu'mey {QubHa'wI'} {ghunchu'wI'} je vIleghpu'
>'ej DaH wot mojaqDaj {-wI'} je jojDaq latlh wot mojaqmey DIlo' 'e' vIchup
>
>chay' Sujang
jIyajbe'; qatlh pIjangnIS? pagh Datlhob. mu'mey "QubHa'wI'" "ghunchu'wI'"
Daleghpu'. vIleghpu' je jIH. 'ej wot "-wI'" je jojDaq latlh wot mojaq
DIlo' 'e' Dachup. wejpuH. qatlh DachupnISqu' 'e' DaHar? DIlo'ba'! 'ej
qaStaHvIS DISmey DIlo'! 'ej qatlh DIlo'nISbe'? wot mojaq Segh Hut mojaq
'oH "-wI'"'e'; vaj Segh cha' mojaq, Segh loS mojaq, Hoch Segh mojaq
tlha'nIS 'ej tlha'laH. qay' nuq?
>>
>From some discussiona long time ago about "Buy me a drink," we could now
produce such words as {tlhutlhlu'wI'} for "drink, that which is drunk."
{ghojmoHwI'} becomes "teacher"; and {pe''eghwI'} becomes "scorekeeper."
Others might include {ja'chuqwI'pu'} for "conferees."
Basically, I have searched through TKD looking for a reason why we cannot use
a verb + -lu' + wI'. I have not found any such reason. Still, most of the
words I read on this listserv using -wI' to change a verb into a noun have
-wI' on the bare stem. I have not seen before anyone attempting to use verb
+ -lu' + -wI'. I still seek comments as to the validity of such
constructions. After all, this construction opens up numerous possibilites
for new translations of English nouns.
peHruS