Re: pab chu'

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@cms.mail.virginia.edu>]

I'm pretty certain that Okrand has specifically said that he did 
not see {-lu'} and {-wI'} as compatible. Think about it. 
{jabwI'} is "waiter". One who serves. The noun is the subject of 
the verb it is built from. What would *jablu'wI'* mean? You'd 
probably want it to mean "one who is served", but that's not how 
{-wI'} works. The one doing the action is the one {-wI'} refers 
to. In English, how would it work? "waited-uponer"? For that 
matter, how would you know it was the person being waited upon, 
and not the food being served? After all, from canon, we know 
that the appropriate direct object of {jab} is food (or revenge).

It really doesn't work. It seems like it would if you don't look 
at it very hard. I say that being myself someone who thought it 
would work until I thought about it, and I'll confess I didn't 
even think about it until several people were outraged by the 
suggestion.

Trust me on this. Or repeat arguments that have been made and 
rejected. Or maybe come up with a new argument (though that 
would be a challenge -- this one has been fairly thoroughly 
hashed out and there was a fairly strong consensus, backed up by 
something from Okrand.

charghwI'

On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 11:02:07 -0400 Terrence Donnelly 
<pag000@mail.connect.more.net> wrote:

> 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, 
> >Eric.Andeen@Sequencia.com 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