tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 16 14:17:24 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: -lu'wI' and -lu'ghach
ja' Voragh:
>01/16/2000, DujHoD wrote:
>: What would be the meaning of the verb suffix -lu' plus the suffix -wI'
>: or -ghach, to change it to a noun? For example:
>: HIvlu'wI'
>: [snip]
>: My best guesses for translation are "attackee" (i.e., one who is attacked)
>
>*{-lu'wI'} has been suggested and occasionally used by others on this list
>and in various translation projects of the KLI. I only have just two
>examples in my notes:
>
> *{chellu'wI'} addendum, appendix (Qov) < {chel} "add"
> *{ngoHlu'wI'} the Christ (i.e. the anointed one") KBTP < {ngoH} "smear"
>
>Note that Okrand has never used or approved this form AFAIK, but I would
>think you would certainly be understood, though be prepared for some
>whining from the peanut gallery.
Note also that you'd likely be understood only because this is a common
attempt to express this idea, not because it follows the rules. :-)
At first glance it seems to be a concise way to say it, but the actions of
the suffixes {-lu'} and {-wI'} are in conflict here. {-wI'} talks about
"one who is/does", referring to the subject of the verb. {-lu'} says the
subject is indefinite, giving {-wI'} nothing concrete to refer to. And
in no case have we ever seen {-wI'} talk about the *object* of the verb,
which is what the English suffix "-ee" in "attackee" does.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh