tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 02 13:22:07 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: lu- (was Re: [KLBC] -lu' and -ghach)

• From: "TPO" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: lu- (was Re: [KLBC] -lu' and -ghach)
• Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:22:02 -0500
• Importance: Normal
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

> > puqpu' lutu'lu' - there are children / children are found
> Whatever happened to {tu'lu'} being the exception to adding
> {lu-}?

Hmm.  Is there really a [tu'lu'] exception?  MO doesn't actually say that,
but the examples can suggest such.  Maybe I fell into that third trap
Krankor mentioned.

DloraH

• References:
  • Re: lu- (was Re: [KLBC] -lu' and -ghach)
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: lu- (was Re: [KLBC] -lu' and -ghach)
• Next by Date: bID (was Re: yaywIj yIngaq!)
• Prev by thread: Re: lu- (was Re: [KLBC] -lu' and -ghach)
• Next by thread: Re: lu- (was Re: [KLBC] -lu' and -ghach)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level