tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 20 07:28:24 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:27:40 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' SuStel:
>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'?
QInwIj DalaDHa'chu'. jIjatlhqa':
You've clearly misread my message. I quote from what I said:
"I can understand why the argument exists, *even if I don't agree with it*.
*The idea is* that the verb prefix is added to the verb before the {-wI'}
suffix is." (emphases added for clarity) (Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:06:27 +1000)
jIjatlhqa' je:
I quote myself again, from the same message:
"But as I said in a previous post: I, like you and most others on the list
AFAIK, *don't find verb prefixes on {-wI'} nouns to be grammatical*, and
won't until I see some canon that says otherwise." (emphasis added for
clarity)
All I was doing was saying that I could see why the argument for verb
prefixes on {-wI'} nouns might exist. I didn't ever say that I agreed with
that school of thought; in fact, I thought I was very clear in saying that I
did *not* agree with it. I'm on your side here, SuStel.
Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
Looking to buy a new house? Try http://property.ninemsn.com.au/