tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 20 15:22:29 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qama'
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Matt Johnson wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.990320134208.20364E-
> [email protected]>, david joslyn <[email protected]>
> writes
> >Wait...does this mean <jatmey> could also mean "mumblings"?
> >No, wait...that would be <jatwI'mey>. Oh well.
>
> I don't think so. *{jatwI'mey} would be an illegal plural form of
> "mumblers". (Well, things that aren't language-capable can't mumble...)
>
> I don't think you can say "mumblings" without a {-ghach} nominalizer,
> which it is generally wise to avoid. Perhaps something like ?{mu'meyDaj
> wIyajbe'laHbogh} -- his words which we couldn't understand.
Whoa, back the horse up there cowpoke! tlhIngan Hol has a nominalizer?
What is its order among the suffixes. How is it used? Can you give me
canon examples? And why was I not INFORMED of this fact?
> Uh-oh, that looks like it could fall into the "the ship in which I fled"
> category... (}}:-<)
I think I missed that "discussion" (argument-ed.)
quljIb