tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 19 22:14:39 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'Iv qeylIS betleH chenmoHlu'?
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: 'Iv qeylIS betleH chenmoHlu'?
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:55:56 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Neal Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: 'Iv qeylIS betleH chenmoHlu'?
>>>> ... <ja'chuqlu'> vIlaD ... jIyajbe'.
>>Hmmmm . . . Daj!
>
>Dajqu' 'ej moHqu'.
jIQochbe'.
><ja'chuq> is a compound of <ja'> "tell" and <-chuq> "one
>another". <-chuq> always has a plural subject and it makes the verb
>reflexive in such a way that the object is the rest of the members of the
>plural subject.
THIS is the correct proof against {ja'chuqlu'}, and I'm quite convinced.
However . . .
>You can't have <wI-> on <-chuq>, and you can't have <mu-> on <-lu'>. Since
><-chuq> requires a no-object prefix and <-lu'> requires a 3rd-person object
>prefix, the two suffixes cannot be legally combined.
{-lu'} does not automatically require a third-person object prefix. It only
does so if there IS an object. There is one prefix, the null prefix, which
may be used on {-lu'} verbs without any problem.
Sometimes there may be no object. {quSDaq ba'lu''a'?}
Thus, your first point correctly prevents use of {-chuq} and {-lu'} at the
same time, but your second does not.
>This argument, of course, is invalid if it can be shown that
>verb-plus-suffix(es) entries in TDK and KGT are unique words, not simply
>examples of usage. <lo'laH> is an abbheration, aside from which I 'feel'
>that the latter is true.
We can't have that now . . . :) I happen to agree with this.
SuStel
Stardate 97886.8