[109075] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Rendered fat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Thu Feb 23 18:35:02 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CABSTb1eM1bjfZ4b-dVnUBdhUMP1yeq6ibgJUvj3MoAOxh9MT9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:15:40 +0100
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
On 23 February 2017 at 07:07, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, my argument that -lu'wI' might function as -ee in employee stems from
> the fact that if there's a -lu' on the verb, -wI' can't nominalize it as the
> subject, since there isn't any, so the next candidate is the object.
Why doesn't it turn the verb into its indefinite subject?
For example:
{Daqawlu'} "you are remembered"
*{Daqawlu'wI'} - if I understand your claim, you would claim this
means "you who are remembered" (i.e., the "rememberee"), but why
doesn't this mean "whoever or whatever remembers you" (the
"rememberer")?
(I don't think you can stick a prefix like {Da-} and the suffix {-wI'}
on the same verb, but while you're sticking {-lu'} and {-wI'}
together, why not?)
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
