tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 20 16:27:58 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: problems with -wI'

96-09-20 14:41:54 EDT, jatlh macheq:

> And dealing with group 9 verb suffixes in both cases (David's and Sami's
>  as well as e.g. with beHwI"av's mailings) -wI' is OMITTED COMPLETELY
>  from the discussion of the verb suffixes in the respective sections as
>  if it were not a verb suffix. But similarly -bogh makes a noun out of a
>  verb, and our authors don't put -bogh under nouns, and don't omit it
>  from the verbal suffixes. Lack of consequence? %-{)

You meant {-ghach}, not {-bogh}, right?  :)

I for one have not seen David Barron's postal course (other than a brief
glance at the qep'a' wejDIch) or Sami Laitalla'a file, so I cannot say much
about how they impart information, but I think problems may occur because, as
you point out, {-wI'} is dealt with in the section on nouns more extensively
than in the verb chapter.  However, the {-wI'} entry in section four does
explain that it was dealt with already in another section, gives the
reference, and then gives a few more examples.

This organization is slightly confusing, in my opinion, but I would have to
say that more difficulty has occurred because of the identical noun suffix
{-wI'}.

>  Extra note: should we not finally accept that the suffix -oy is in fact
>  -oy/-'oy (see p.174 TKD)?

Okrand says that inserting the {'} is "suspected."  There are no examples
which Maltz, Federation prisoner and original source of the language, has
used.

In fact, I can only think of one noun which ends in a vowel but might
logically be given the {-oy} suffix: {ghu}.  Go ahead and write {ghu'oy}.
 Until Okrand gives a ruling or a clear example, I'm sure everyone will
accept it as good enough, even though we're not "sure."

SuStel
Stardate 96722.7

Back to archive top level