tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 03 20:11:52 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - handle: <'uchmeHwI' > or <'uchmeHghach> ????
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: Re: KLBC - handle: <'uchmeHwI' > or <'uchmeHghach> ????
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 23:12:42 -0400
At 09:21 PM 8/29/96 -0700, Chet Braun wrote:
>Trying to find a way of saying 'handle'.
>
>I think TKD says that you can't turn a verb with a suffix, <'uchmeH> into a
>noun
>unless you use <-ghach> suffix. So instead of <'uchmeHwI'>, which should
>mean "thing for the purpose of holding", would <'uchmeHghach> convey the
>idea of a handle?
No it would not... you made a few rather basic mistakes here..
First, you CAN use -wI' on a verb with other suffixes: ghojmoHwI', for
teacher, for example. Your next mistake was to say ?'uchmeHwI'? means
"thing for the purpose of holding". -wI' and -meH cannot BOTH be on the
same verb at the same time... because they are both Type 9's, and you can
only have one suffix of any one Type on a verb.
So no, it would not.
A "thing for the purpose of holding" would be <'uchmeH Doch>.
I'm sure someone else can think of something better, though...
>Of course they may already be a word for handle that I'm
>not aware of...
That's possible, too.
>jImISbej
Confusion can be good. Confusion leads to questions; questions lead to
answers; answers lead to absences of confusion.
(Confusion is a self-destructive force? {{:) )
>HetaQ
--tQ
---
HoD trI'Qal, tlhIngan wo' Duj lIy So' ra'wI'
Captain T'rkal, Commander IKV Hidden Comet
Klingon speaker and net junkie!
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH... qatlh HaghtaH Qanqor HoD???
monlI'bogh tlhInganbe' yIvoqQo'! SoHvaD monlI' trI'Qal...