tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 19 20:01:22 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

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>

> Since verb prefixes are part of every bare verb, why wouldn't they be
> part of a verb to which {-wI'} is added?

How do you know that every verb has a prefix?  A verb with a 0-prefix would
be awfully hard to distinguish from a verb with no prefix.

Phrases like {ghojmeH taj} may well include verbs without prefixes.  Just
because it *could* have a prefix doesn't mean you know that it *does* have
one.  The actual dictionary entries for verbs are obviously verbs without
prefixes (if they already had prefixes, you couldn't add prefixes to them).

I am of the opinion that verbs do not have prefixes unless there is a
subject/object need for them, and that including {-wI'} on the verb
precludes the presence of a prefix.

Or can you tell me what these mean: qaleghwI', chovanwI', pIpIHwI',
jIQongwI'?

SuStel
Stardate 4468.5

Back to archive top level