tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 20 14:53:19 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' jI'qel ghojwI':

>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...").

I'd always thought this meant that these were null prefixes. There is a 
slight difference grammatically. But if this is the case, then that clears 
up all arguments IMHO.

ghItlhpu' SuStel:

>I was disagreeing with your statement: "Since verb prefixes are
>part of every bare verb, why wouldn't they be part of a verb to which 
>{-wI'}
>is added?"  This is the only part of your message I quoted.  My answer: you
>don't know that every verb has a prefix.

I know for a fact that some of them don't. The evidence that verbs using 
{-meH} can lack verb prefixes seems pretty substantial. Also, the fact that 
verbs using {-ghach} don't take verb prefixes supports this argument.

But I'm a bit confused: Is this all you're arguing, or are you arguing also 
that the null prefixes are essentially no prefix at all?

>I added the final part of my message to include *my* opinion on the 
>subject,
>not to disagree with yours.

luq. You just seemed to be asking me in particular how to translate 
*{jIQongwI'}, *{chovanwI'} and the others, which indicated to me that you 
thought I condoned {-wI'} plus verb prefix.

Sorry if I got a little hot under the collar.

Savan.

QeS lagh

_________________________________________________________________
Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here:  
http://ninemsn.match.com?referrer=hotmailtagline

Back to archive top level