tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 04 11:37:53 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

RE: Polysyllabic verbs

• From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: Polysyllabic verbs
• Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:28:37 -0400

> > Hmm, what about {nga'chuq}?
> 
> I would not consider {nga'chuq} to be a root verb the same way I don't
> consider {-taHvIS} to be a single suffix. They may always appear together,
> but it really is a root plus a suffix and the root is monosyllabic.

Except that we don't have a root {nga'}.  Similar to {roSHa'moH},
speculation about possible etymologies with {roS} aside.

--Holtej 'utlh

tlhIngan-Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm

• Prev by Date: Re: reH taHqu'taH leng'e' (was: reH taH leng 'ej taHtaH)
• Next by Date: Re: Artificial languages (was RE: Enterprise)
• Prev by thread: RE: Polysyllabic verbs
• Next by thread: KLBC: vaj
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level