tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 07 06:09:11 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Quick question
- From: "Donald E. Vick" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Quick question
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 06:08:01 -0800 (PST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "HurghwI'" at Nov 7, 96 02:45:25 am
ghItlh HurghwI':
> If you have a word like lo'laH and you want to make it "to be able to be
> vauluable," are you allowed to use lo'laHlaH? This word in particular seems
> vague because lo'laH (valuable) and lo'laH (able to use) are not quite the
> same. What about other suffixes? Basically I'm wondering if some of the
> words in the dictionary really have suffixes or just appear to.
Not answering KLBC, just adding to the question: since laH is also a
noun, could this be one of those strange verb-noun mutations that we have
observed? Like maSwov?
taDI'oS vIq, law'wI'pu'vaD Holtej jIH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Thaddaeus Vick, Linguist to the Masses | [email protected] -or- |
| | [email protected] |
| gules on a saltire argent voided azure | |
| thirteen mullets of the second. Yeeha. | http://www.crl.com/~dvick |
----------------------------------------------------------------------