[110400] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Placing the {-wI'} on verbs with prefixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Wed Aug 9 10:24:28 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:23:55 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cJq1L0AT2rmN__JBZdpL6tpc12dL_C7Y5ZYzwj=YOzMbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============0467725387486529178==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------DA72A58F45A954DE75D0BFF1"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------DA72A58F45A954DE75D0BFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 8/9/2017 10:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> There are some prefixes which have multiple meanings. For example:
> {vI-} for "I-he/she/it/them".
>
> But there are other prefixes, which have only one meaning. For example
> {jI-} for "I-none", {cho-} for "you-me".
>
> Using the prefixes which have only one meaning, could we write:
>
> {jIghItlhwI'} for "I who write"
> {chobejwI'} for "you who watches me" ?
>
> And I'm saying "using the prefixes which have only one meaning",
> because obviously if we used prefixes which have multiple meanings,
> the result would be ambiguous.
This is an old, old theory.
No *-wI'* has ever been canonically observed with any prefix, ever. I
believe it is never done. My thinking is that the job of the prefix is
to agree with the subject and object, whether stated or elided, not to
set them. As such, it is not as closely associated with the verb as
suffixes (it doesn't change the verb's meaning the way suffixes do), and
so the suffixes take priority. *-wI'* turns the verb into a noun, and
you can't add prefixes to nouns./*.*/
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------DA72A58F45A954DE75D0BFF1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/9/2017 10:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cJq1L0AT2rmN__JBZdpL6tpc12dL_C7Y5ZYzwj=YOzMbQ@mail.gmail.com">There
are some prefixes which have multiple meanings. For example: {vI-}
for "I-he/she/it/them".
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But there are other prefixes, which have only one
meaning. For example {jI-} for "I-none", {cho-} for "you-me".</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Using the prefixes which have only one meaning,
could we write:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">{jIghItlhwI'} for "I who write"</div>
<div dir="auto">{chobejwI'} for "you who watches me" ?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">And I'm saying "u<span
style="font-family:sans-serif">sing the prefixes which have
only one meaning", because obviously if we used prefixes which
have multiple meanings, the result would be ambiguous.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<p>This is an old, old theory.</p>
<p>No <b>-wI'</b> has ever been canonically observed with any
prefix, ever. I believe it is never done. My thinking is that the
job of the prefix is to agree with the subject and object, whether
stated or elided, not to set them. As such, it is not as closely
associated with the verb as suffixes (it doesn't change the verb's
meaning the way suffixes do), and so the suffixes take priority. <b>-wI'</b>
turns the verb into a noun, and you can't add prefixes to nouns.<i><b>.</b></i><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------DA72A58F45A954DE75D0BFF1--
--===============0467725387486529178==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============0467725387486529178==--
