tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 12 06:54:54 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC
In a message dated 3/12/2004 9:24:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
>
>
> weQqul wrote:
>
> > I have a question..again i am confused.
> > vIchenmoHnIS: gives 2 different meanings...
> > V: vIchenmoHnIS: I cause him/her/it/them to need to build up, take form (1
> errors 0.50)
> > V: vIchenmoHnIS: I need to form, make, create him/her/it/them
>
> For clarity, weQqul is here referring to {pojwI'}.
>
> > ok on the one that saiderrors it says that suffix order is
> > incorrect, but for
> > the second meaning it says nothing about the order. i understand
> > this to mean
> > that there are 2 words meanings here. one is chen and one is
> > chenmoH. so does
> > this mean that if you use this to mean: V: vIchenmoHnIS: I need to
> > form, make, create him/her/it/them this is correct but if you want it
> > to mean :V: vIchenmoHnIS: I cause him/her/it/them to need to build
> > up, take form (1 errors 0.50)
> > then it would be wrong and have to be written vIchennISmoH? i am
> > really confused here.
qon Holtej (pojwI' chenmoHwI')
> All this means is that {pojwI'} found {chenmoH} in its lexicon, and so as
> far as it knows it's a complete root. Adding the suffix {-nIS} to this root
> is not perceived by {pojwI'} to be an error.
>
> However, we know that the words that are listed in TKD as roots + suffixes
> are just that (with the notable exception of {lo'laH}). So, even though
> {pojwI'} does not indicate that {chenmoHnIS} is an error, we know better.
>
> yIvoq 'ach yI'ol.
>
> > weQqul
She told me it was in mu'HaqwI' as well, giving the same information. Interesting that they both would contain the same error.
Qapla'!
nov wamwI'
03/12/2004 09:53 (Local Time)
HovpoH 701278.2