tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 20:37:09 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: family suffixes



jatlh ~mark:
> 
> Hmm.  Can't say about this one.  At least you didn't say "*nal", which
> would have been more intuitive.  BUT Okrand (in TKW, if I recall correctly)
> tells us that -nal is a bound morpheme, which doesn't occur on its own.
> NOTE: the previous sentence was straight out of my fuzzy memory: someone
> please double-check.

I also recall this, let me check... a quick scan of TKW turned up
nothing, but I know its there somewhere.  I just flipped through really
fast looking for a bold-print {nal} and didn't find anything.  However,
I am absolutely positive that you quoted Okrand correctly, regardless of
source.

-mIqIraH


Back to archive top level