[111411] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nIqolay Q)
Fri Oct 6 03:21:06 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <d558ad3c-4997-3ae1-1897-5f7218b602ab@trimboli.name>
From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:35:05 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============1480241563385541744==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f6a20251731055aba5aa7"
--001a113f6a20251731055aba5aa7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:29 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 10/4/2017 11:20 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
>
> 5. {Duj wejwIjDIch} or {DujwIj wejDIch} ?
>>
>
> I don't think you even need Okrand for this one. Is there any reason to
> suspect *Duj wejwIjDIch* even works?
>
> I thought the question was whether it was *DujwIj wejDIch* or *Duj
> wejDIchwIj* (or either).
>
That makes a little more sense, though I'm still not sure why *Duj
wejDIchwIj* is under consideration either. Asking about something like *DujDaq
wejDIch* vs. *Duj wejDIchDaq* would at least make some sense, since we know
type 5 noun suffixes move around like that. But possession suffixes don't
hop around like that, and *wejDIch* isn't a noun.
--001a113f6a20251731055aba5aa7
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On W=
ed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:29 AM, SuStel <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto=
:sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span=
> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
=20
=20
=20
<div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><span class=3D"">
<div class=3D"m_8764017314966680274moz-cite-prefix">On 10/4/2017 11:20 =
AM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"auto">
<div dir=3D"auto">
<div dir=3D"auto">
<div dir=3D"auto">5. {Duj wejwIjDIch} or {DujwIj wejDIch} ?</=
div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't think you even need Okrand for this one. Is there an=
y
reason to suspect <b>Duj wejwIjDIch</b> even works?</div>
</blockquote>
</span><p>I thought the question was whether it was <b>DujwIj wejDIch</=
b>
or <b>Duj wejDIchwIj</b> (or either).<span class=3D"HOEnZb"></span><b=
r></p></div></blockquote></div>That makes a little more sense, though I'=
;m still not sure why <b>Duj wejDIchwIj</b> is under consideration either. =
Asking about something like <b>DujDaq wejDIch</b> vs. <b>Duj wejDIchDaq</b>=
would at least make some sense, since we know type 5 noun suffixes move ar=
ound like that. But possession suffixes don't hop around like that, and=
<b>wejDIch</b> isn't a noun.<br></div></div>
--001a113f6a20251731055aba5aa7--
--===============1480241563385541744==
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
--===============1480241563385541744==--
