tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 18 08:20:12 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: suffixes on adjectival verbs
- From: "Qang qu'wI'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: suffixes on adjectival verbs
- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:18:33 -0600
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Vg8H7DmrUg0tYzz3l4napL2purtK2qN2QSzlI+8GBi8=; b=hkhq9xhf01cTfitbLnxU4r7Udkh30Pi51AjDcV2Y9+XlQyDKvebr+xw2JCl5VA/TDz1Ed+dtzYuS5QmnIIlKqhBZMIhOGy6Bj1iEdkar9nti5r7PGEJTv7eEcThIB6Z0HtZSKbAbyxcYL8wYA+CHScDMTNkT9p5KzN4OjUVOax4=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=b3iSSzYRCOK4INfyK5SF0hFKcBL3kprIonW26dM9uS2cZREKezBQKklHqjjr0iQCYIU/NgkjdnmDu937WnQ54+gGIzxYDcC/CvByvXAiaQH+Ug/4xvBO3PJTiNwrYeN5zfR5szDs7R18RIeLrmWH4PMhK/lndI0b+sQ5ts8/lJA=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Nov 18, 2007 12:14 AM, Alan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <Duj ngaDHa'> yIqaw je.
>
maj! chovnatlhHeylIjmo' nejmeH Qu' vIruchta'. [KGT pg. 150]-Daq
chovnatlhvam tu'lu'. mu' {ngaDHa'} 'angbe' KGT mu'ghom. vaj latlh
chovnatlhna' 'oH. ([pg 150]-Daq chovnatlhna' {tara'ngan ngaDHa'}
tu'lu' je).
Is it reasonable for me to take away from this discussion a belief
that even conservative grammarians will accept {-be'} and {-Ha'} as
well as {-qu'} on verbs used as adjectives following nouns, despite
the description in TKD?
--
Qang qu'wI'