tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 03 08:57:34 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tuH vs tuHmoH





ghItlh SuStel:
>>>
...Here's how I would say this:

pIm'a' <tuH> <tuHmoH> je?

Now, this isn't really quite asking what you mean. You want to know if
<tuHmoH> counts as a verb root, because it's found in TKD.
<<<
HIja'! What about this sentence:

<tuH> <tuHmoH> je Daqel. mu'mey pIm bIH'a'

Are there any noted exception word pairs in TKD where the -moH (or any
other suffix for that matter) word is treated as a separate word? <tuQ> and
<tuQmoH> were the original words that I was trying to use as I explained in
an earlier post. I can see that this is a difficult part of the language. I
remember all the discussion concerning "be" on a verb, verbs of motion, and
the more recent stative issues.

>>>
We don't know. My opinion is that {tuHmoH} is just {tuH} + {-moH}, added
for
our convenience. It's not a new verb.
<<<
qatlho'. pabpo'pu' latlh, tujang tuneH'a'
---------------
SI'IluD
wa'Hu' jIboghbe'

Back to archive top level