[1573] in tlhIngan-Hol
tun moQmaj
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Sep 15 15:34:09 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: (Mark E. Shoulson) shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 93 14:19:11 -0400
In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Wed, 15 Sep 93 12:30:38 EDT <9309151637.A
A13432@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 93 12:30:38 EDT
>> baHwI' QaQ wItu'pu'mo' chaq Quj wIQappu'
>wItu'pu'mo'?
>Verb prefix - verb - verb suffix - NOUN suffix.
>I don't think that works.
>Maybe wItu'pu'ghachmo'?
>Even then, it is an odd construction. I get ridge marks on my desk when
>I try to understand sentences like this...
You may have the old mu'ghom. According to the second edition, in the
addendum, page 175 (Sect. 4.2.9), "-mo'" is also a verb suffix.
>-- charghwI'
~mark
