[2665] in tlhIngan-Hol
jIlIH'egh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Jan 20 11:21:39 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 11:10:38 -0500
In-Reply-To: Amy West's message of Wed, 19 Jan 94 16:45:56 PST <0meFgc2w165w@ne
tlink.nix.com>
>From: awest@netlink.nix.com (Amy West)
>Date: Wed, 19 Jan 94 16:45:56 PST
>-> History suggests Krankor might offer {mubelmoH naDev
>->jIHtaHghach}. Not everyone likes that particular construction. My
>->own preference would be {naDev jIHtaHmo' bIbel}. Anybody else have
>->a better or alternate suggestion?
>I don't get it.. the first example uses the -ghach
>nominalizer, but in the second example, you use a noun
>suffix (-mo) without the nominalizer. Why not {naDev jIHtaHgachmo'}?
>Since -taH is a verb suffix, I would assume you need the
>-gach before you add the -mo'.
Check your addendum. According to the second edition of TKD (which you
must have or you wouldn't know about -ghach), "-mo'" is also a verb suffix.
~mark
