tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 24 08:13:19 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

{-wI'} nouns

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: {-wI'} nouns
• Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:05:09 EDT

In a message dated 2004-06-20 5:22:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, QeS lagh via 
[email protected] writes:

> 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
> 
Such {-wI'} nouns do not describe the action.  They also do not describe the 
people performing the action (or experiencing the state); rather they *label* 
the people performing (or who can or habitually perform) the action.  
{laDwI'} is a reader, one who reads (as one of his characteristics).  It 
doesn't describe the action of reading.  It labels someone who can read, who does 
read often or a lot.  And it's not the same as {laDbogh vay'}, which *is* a 
description.  Part of the difference is that the {laDwI'} doesn't take an 
object, since it's not a verb.  {paq laDbogh vay'} describes someone reading a book. 
 
My opinion.

lay'tel SIvten

• Prev by Date: no-object prefix with certain verbs
• Next by Date: RE: another canon 'mistake'?
• Previous by thread: no-object prefix with certain verbs
• Next by thread: Re: {-wI'} nouns
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level