tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 07 17:32:47 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Quick question
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Quick question
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 96 23:08:30 UT
jatlh taDI'oS HurghwI' je:
> 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.
It's a good question. It's one of those problems which have been discussed
here on the list a number of times.
It's hard to tell, but my instincts have always told me that words listed in
the dictionary like {jubbe'} and {pujmoH} are there simply because they seemed
like obvious extensions to the language which would occur frequently. It is
my opinion, but I don't believe that {pujmoH} is a seperate verb. You can't
say *{pujmoHnIS}, you must say {pujnISmoH}. My belief isn't proven anywhere
that I know of, but you certainly won't be wrong if you follow it!
> 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?
Hmmm! I hadn't thought of that! I'd always struggled over why {lo'laH} meant
"be valuable." You may have it. Of course, in that case, {lo'laHchoH} would
be a grammatically correct form for "it becomes valuable." Interesting!
SuStel
Stardate 96854.1