tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 29 13:06:41 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: clarify?
- From: "Adrian (HurghwI')" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: clarify?
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:08:28 -0600
At 12:10 PM 11/29/96 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> > Now, could someone shed some light on <vItu'laHbe'>? I recognize
>> >the <vI-> prefix, and the <-be'> suffix, but can't decipher <-tu'->, or
>> >decide if <-laH-> is supposed to be a suffix or <laH> (ability).
>>
>> I hope I'm not intruding on your territory, SuStel, but . . .
>
> ...as long as I get an answer I can understand, I"m not picky. :)
>
>> <vItu'laHbe'> means "I can't find it." <tu'> is on TKD p.111.
>> You know that <laH> can't be "ability" because then it would be a noun, and
>> since that sentence needs a verb, <laH> must be the suffix to the verb <tu'>.
>>
>> vI - tu' - laH - be'
>> I-it find can not
>> I can't find it!
>
> Ah, so <laH> (ability) has also been used as a verb suffix. OK,
>this I can deal with.
Read TKD p.39, near the bottom. It's not a case of a noun being used as a
suffix. They just both happen to be related.
-HurghwI'
| HurghwI' - Peregrine - Adrian
| http://www.jwp.bc.ca/peregrine
_|\_ email - [email protected]
/ / \ \ PGP ID 768/6D1D08DD
,-\\ //\__ mIS yIjach, 'ej veS
/ __\\//___/ targhmey tIQeyHa'choHmoH!
|/ `----`