tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 10 07:49:31 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: pab chu'
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: pab chu'
- Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 09:47:11 -0500
I don't have a good feel for the concensus on this point. It's
chear that words with {-wI'} can take some other verbal suffixes
(such as the word {wovmoHwI'} from the BOP poster), but I don't
know what, if any, restrictions exist. Not using {-lu'} may be
a convention of the list, but I can't find a concise source for
the reason why.
-- ter'eS
At 09:58 PM 7/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 7/8/1999 6:41:14 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
>[email protected] writes:
>
><< SKI: I recently posted some new pages to my Website containing a
> > listing of all the grammar addenda and corrections post-TKD that
> > I could find. You may find it interesting. Let me know if I said
> > something wrong or forgot your favorite bit. >>
>=======================
>Mark Shoulson once a long time ago answered my inquiry regarding using both
>{-lu'} and {-wI'} on one verb stem. He said NO. Have there been any other
>revelations on this point? If yes, what are they? From what source(s)?
>Would you post this, too?
>
>peHruS
>
>