tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 22 09:11:20 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: agentive -wI'

>  > DughojmoHwI' - he/she who teaches you(singlular)
> I don't reject -wI' on prefixed verbs out of hand, but this one comes off 
> as weird.  Perhaps it's because I know I'd say ghojmoHwI'lI' for that 
> sense.  I would use -wI' on any combination of suffixes if I judged that
> construction to be the most effective means of communicating a given
> meaning.
HoHwI'wI' - "my killer".  Did I hire him to kill someone else, or did someone 
else hire him to kill me?

muHoHwI' - "one that kills me".  Someone hired him to kill me.

Sure we could use -bogh.  muHoHbogh nuv.  And if there were more than one 
killer, we could still use -bogh, but it could get messy.

taj lo'bogh 'ej muHoHbogh nuv  nISwI' lo'bogh 'ej muHoHbogh nuv ghap Dalegh'a'?

And about adding other suffixes, a few days ago I used something like  
Sovchu'be'wI' "those that don't completely know".  We could use a -bogh, but 
then we could always use a -bogh instead of -wI'.  So why do we have -wI'?

(I'm at work so I don't have the message I'm quoting...)
"We admire it's speed then try to use it as a pack animal."

We could look at it as, "Why buy a 2Gig Pentium processor when all you're going 
to do is plan text e-mail.  You can do a lot more with such a machine."


Back to archive top level