Re: agentive -wI'

["David Trimboli" <SuStel@hotmail.com>]

From: <willm@cstone.net>

> So, are you saying that you have no problem with {QomnISlaw'wI'}? You
really
> think Okrand should include that in his next vocabulary list?

Nobody's saying that it should be lexicalized.  You're back in
all-or-nothing mode.  Here, have a cup of gray.  Personally, I don't have a
problem with someone using 'throw-away" /-wI'/ words as they do "throw-away"
/-bogh/ clauses.

> > ja' SuStel:
> > >nuq Qub ...uh... ghunchu'wI'?  pongDaj choHnIS'a'?
> >
> > jaS pongwIj vIwIvta' rut vIneH, 'ach mubepmoHbe' pabDaj.
> > pongwIj vIghajbogh vIpoltaH.
>
> Your name has become part of the common vocabulary. I have no problem with
it.

My line was a joke, but your response is interesting.  You would have had a
problem with it once upon a time?

SuStel
Stardate 2154.1