tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 26 22:32:00 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: KLBC / blue goo from Hell

jIjatlh:
><chenmoH> is <chen> plus <-moH>. Unless we specifically know otherwise,
>entries like <chenmoH> and <QeyHa'> in TKD should be treated as stem+suffix
>combinations that are in there for convenience. The one exception that we
>know of is <lo'laH> - "be valuable". So the <-Ha'> goes before the <-moH>.

jatlh De'vID:
> When you say that /lo'laH/ is an exception, does that
> mean that the entire word is the verb and cannot be
> broken down?

> So, would it be legal to say /lo'laHlaH/, "It can be valuable"?

> Also, isn't there a rule that says bare verbs cannot be
> /-ghach/ed?  If that's the case, /lo'laHghach/ would be
> illegal, since /*-laH/ wouldn't be a suffix.

> Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you mean when
> you say that /lo'laH/ is an exception/.  yIQIj!

lu'.

<lo'laH> is is a whole word. It can be used as an adjective, as in <'etlh
lo'laH vIqeng> - "I carry a valuable blade". A plain verb plus <-laH> could
not be used this way.

The natural assumption is that verb suffixes are added just like with any
other verb, so <lo'laHlaH> would indeed mean "he/she/it can be valuable",
and <vIlo'laHmoHlaH> would mean "I can make it valuable.". Unless we hear
otherwise, go ahead and treat it that way.

And now that you mention it, <lo'laH> is another exception - since it's used
as an example for <-ghach> in TKD, <lo'laHghach> must be OK. Most likely the
<-laH> makes it OK, even though it's not really a suffix.

taQbej mu'vam. lo'laH, 'ach taQ.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

Back to archive top level