tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 20 11:51:13 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap

Heather Myers ([email protected])

• From: "Heather Myers" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap
• Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:51:14 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

> ghItlhpu' jIqel ghojwI':
> 
> >When you add the suffix -wI' to a verb, it becomes a noun. (TKD
3.2.2,
> >p. 20)  Verb prefixes may not be added to nouns.  I don't see how
there
> >can be an argument about this.
> 
> Since verb prefixes are part of every bare verb, why wouldn't they be
> part of a verb to which {-wI'} is added?

Because 'zero prefix' means 'there is no prefix' (TKD p. 33: "0 in the
chart means that the particular subject-object combinations are
indicated by the absence of a prefix before the verb...").

> QeS lagh

jI'qel ghojwI'
<batlh wo' yejHaD je vItoy'mo' jIHem>

(And I seem to have somehow neglected to correct the misspelling of my
name in my own signature.  jIDoghqu'bej.)

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 15-Jun-2004
 

• References:
  • RE: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap
    • From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap
• Next by Date: Re: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap
• Previous by thread: Re: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap
• Next by thread: Re: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level