tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 24 18:56:25 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-wI'} nouns
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {-wI'} nouns
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:55:44 +1000
- Bcc:
jIghItlhpu':
>It's clear to me also that the {-wI'} noun is describing the *action*, not
>the people performing the action.
>
>QeS lagh
jangpu' lay'tel SIvten:
>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.
'e' vIjatlh DaH tlhoS 'e' vIHarbe'. yajchu'ghachlIj pup vIl yajHa'ghachwIj
pup Hab.
I can't believe I actually said that. {{:S Your interpretation of the {-wI'}
noun is clearly better than mine is. If you're describing the *action*,
you'd use a {-bogh} clause, as you said.
{laDwI'} - reader
{laDbogh vay'} - one who reads
laDtaHghach buS {laDwI'} 'e' vIHar 'ach laDwI' buSqu' {laDbogh vay'} 'e'
vIHar je, qarqu'law'mo' vangwI'. 'ach vIyoymoHlaw'pu'.
The way I interpreted the difference was that {laDwI'} focuses more on the
action of reading, whereas {laDbogh vay'} has slightly more focus on who is
doing the reading (since it's more accurate in terms of the actor). But it
seems I've got it the wrong way around.
HIvqa' veqlargh.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp?banner=emailtag&referrer=hotmail