tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 19 17:56:08 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap

QeS lagh ([email protected]) 

ghItlhpu' lay'tel SIvten:

>The possibility of verbs plus suffix {-wI'} taking prefixes has been 
>discussed here more than once.  To me it makes no sense for there to be a 
>prefix on such a word.

I agree completely, and that seems to be consensus among other speakers as 
well. *{mughojmoHwI'} "the one who teaches me" is an interesting concept, 
and concise, but the same thing can be achieved with {mughojmoHbogh nuv}. As 
well, I think that from a diachronic point of view, the suffixes probably 
came first (since there are so many of them); and if the suffixes are the 
first affixes put on a verb, then the verb becomes a noun before the verb 
prefixes get a chance to act.

>And the meaning of such words is literally "one who/that is/does", i.e. the 
>prototypical subject of the verb.  Someone has pointed out that many of the 
>verbs plus {-wI'} are actually the means of performing the action, e.g. 
>"ghItlhwI'".

The definition of {-wI'} is one of the most clear definitions in TKD, which 
is why almost everyone is comfortable with using {-wI'} on verbs they may 
not ever have seen before. {wochwI'} "one who is tall". 
{ghojqangqa'moHlaHchu'taHwI'} "one who is clearly willing to be able to 
resume continually teaching". It's clear to me also that the {-wI'} noun is 
describing the *action*, not the people performing the action.

QeS lagh

_________________________________________________________________
Smart Saving with ING Direct ? earn 5.25% p.a. variable rate:  
http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;7249209;8842331;n?http://www.ingdirect.com.au/burst6offer.asp?id=8

Back to archive top level