tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 01 17:13:35 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: chuv

Quvar ([email protected])

• From: Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar) <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: chuv
• Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:44:35 +0100
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

Am 01.03.2004 20:33:03, schrieb "...Paul" <[email protected]>:

>As a counterpoint, IIRC, we have "chenmoH" in the dictionary specifically
>as well, but I've been told that if I wanted to say "he needs to create" I
>would NOT say */chenmoHnIS/.

similar with {Say'moH} "clean", {poSmoH} "open", ...
I guess these are only listed to show that there is not really a verb "to open", but still a way to say say it, 
using "cause to be open" and so on.

>But the corrolary would be, what if I wanted to use /chuvmey/ with a Type
>1 noun suffix?  Would it be */chuvmey'a'/ or */chuv'a'mey/ ?  This is
>where this kind of oddity becomes problematic.

I got a similar problem with {HoSghaj} "be powerful". It sounds like it literally means "have power".

  {HoSghaj; mupwI' rur.} 
  "[s/he is] powerful as a hammer"

{HoSghaj HoD} sounds okay. What about {HoD HoSghaj}? 
If we can accept it as single verb, it's no problem.

Quvar.

• References:
  • Re: chuv
    • From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: geography
• Next by Date: Re: chuv
• Previous by thread: Re: chuv
• Next by thread: Re: chuv
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level