tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 03 19:28:54 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

RE: KLBC - Trick or Treat

• From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
• Subject: RE: KLBC - Trick or Treat
• Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:28:15 -0500

ghItlhpu' taDI'oS vIq:
>bIDubqu'!  Hol wIghojmeH, batlh wISuqmeH je wIja'chuq 'ej tlhIngan Hol wIlo'

ghItlh SuStel:
>{wIja'chuq}  We discuss what?  Perhaps you mean {tlhIngan Hol wIja'chuq}?
>(I'm not even going to get into the question of whether {ja'chuq} can be
>considered a seperate, transitive verb . . .)  There was no other context to
>suggest anything else.  Still, I'm unsure . . .

Change the prefix to make it {maja'chuq} "we confer", and it makes
perfect sense to me.  If we consider {ja'chuq} to be {ja'} + {-chuq},
then it must have a "no object" verb prefix (TKD 4.2.1 page 36).

(The rest of SuStel's comments are right on target, of course!)

-- ghunchu'wI'

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: KLBC - Trick or Treat
    • From: "Donald E. Vick" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: NOT KLBC
• Next by Date: Re: Halloween / "Heghlu'wI' jaj"
• Prev by thread: NOT KLBC
• Next by thread: Re: KLBC - Trick or Treat
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level