tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 06 06:17:00 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}
- From: McArdle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 06:14:25 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=Qs6tHwU4xWoI7ClCZ1WDtaIlI+pRRRchqZuoAhF07PdMsZilMevACUnbfEAZ7hdMbOAUvxTBrFhZZR4nbHOUqwFlOqEs5T+S4HiiTD1w/Q1lijMGa0vPVCh/xjAn1N7kBJ1uEg1aaVd7Wxr4H0+GM4wAVRncFvM3OQv2MyTn0wo=;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
--- Doq <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> (chenmoH is an
> action verb, not a stative one -- it would be
> stative without the -
> moH)
> ...
I don't understand this. I don't know how {chen} is
used in canon (other than as part of {chenmoH}), but
it's defined as "build up, take form" and this doesn't
seem like a stative concept to me. Isn't taking form
(unlike "having form") an active process rather than a
state?
-- mI'qey
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping