tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 18 12:45:38 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: multiple verb suffixes

Lieven Litaer ([email protected])

• From: "Lieven Litaer" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: multiple verb suffixes
• Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:44:49 +0100 (MET)
• References: <[email protected]>

> So we should've made an example of, perhaps, /ghaj/:
> 
> vIghajnISchoHmoH:

maj.

> Unfortunately, using /-qu'/ gets us to down only one "level" -- ie. it may
> determine which pair of the above are intended, but still does not
> distinguish which of the pairs is correct...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I tried to distinguish those
using {-qu'} - and it didn't really work. :-/

But that suffix is still a useful tool to clarify what you mean. What the
perfect english translation is though; will still remain context related.

Quvar.

-- 
+++ NEU bei GMX und erstmalig in Deutschland: TÜV-geprüfter Virenschutz +++
100% Virenerkennung nach Wildlist. Infos: http://www.gmx.net/virenschutz

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: multiple verb suffixes
    • From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: multiple verb suffixes
    • From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Flexibility of law'/puS
• Next by Date: Re: Imperatives with {-eghmoH}, round 2
• Previous by thread: Re: multiple verb suffixes
• Next by thread: Re: multiple verb suffixes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level