tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 08 20:11:15 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: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:12:15 -0400
At 04:54 PM 8/30/96 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>At 01:38 AM 30/8/96 -0700, you wrote:
>> Chet Braun <[email protected]> wrote;-
>
>> {'uchmeHwI} and {'uchmeHghach} each have two class 9 verb suffixes, which is
>>illegal. If they mean anything, they mean "thing for the purpose of being a
>>holder" and "the condition of being for the purpose of holding". Best put on
>>the list for Okrand that we need a word for "handle".
>
>Since when is the suffix {-wI'} Type 9? Doesn't say anything like that in my
>TKD! Look at 3.2.2.
I now understand from where your confusion with -wI' comes.
Unfortunately, the -wI' being referred to in section 3.2.2 is the VERB
suffix -wI'. Let me quote from page 19, that same section:
"A second type of complex noun consists of a *VERB* followed by a suffix
meaning <one who does> or <thing which does>." Emphasis added. <>'s used
to indicate italics.
If you look at the section on verbs (4.2.9, specifically the next page:
44), there is a decription of a VERB suffix -wI', and it says:
"This is the suffix described earlier (section 3.2.2) which turns verbs into
nouns."
It is listed under the Type 9 verb suffixes. -ghach is also described (in
the appendix, on page 176) as a type 9. On page 44, section 4.2.10, the KD
also states:
"... No more than one suffix of each type may occur at a time."
Does that help clarify this use of -wI' some more?
>Qapla'
>
>beHwI"av
--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...