tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 23 22:58:04 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: tera'ngan jIH
Just a note:
In his interview focussing on how particular verbs work with direct objects,
Okrand revealed that while {ghom} can be used properly either as {qaghom} or
{maghom} (so {maghomchuq} would be somewhat redundant, but not entirely
wrong), {qIH} can only be used as {qaqIH} or {maqIHchuq} and never as
{*maqIH}. So, there's no mistake in this message, though {maghomchuq} looks
a little verbose, since the {-chuq} is not necessary.
SarrIS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: qIroS [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 2:02 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: tera'ngan jIH
>
>
> > > tlhIngan vIrur'eghmoH vIneH
> >
> > veng DaDabbogh yIngu'
> >
> >
>
> *newcastle, England*Daq vIDab
>
> cha' ben maqIHchuq
>
> chaq wa' nem maghomchuqqa'
>
>