[86209] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Questions with law'/puS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Tue Jul 7 17:14:23 2009
In-Reply-To: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A6A4BBB52B44@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
From: "ghunchu'wI'" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:12:47 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> ter'eS:
>> This is what I was getting at when I proposed in another context
>> {SuS bIr
>> HoS law''a' qo' Hov HoS pus'a'}. But I apparently only dreamed
>> that we
>> had canon support for putting verb suffixes on the {law'/puS} pair.
>
> AFAIK the only verb suffix that has appeared on a {law'/puS} pair
> is {-be'}:
>
> QuchlIj vIl law'be' QuchwIj vIl puSbe'
> your forehead isn't ridgier than my forehead (HQ 13.1)
>
> Note that it's on both {law'} and {puS}.
This is consistent with the adjectival use of verbs in general, where
it seems that rovers {-qu', -be', -Ha'} are the only verb suffixes
seen in such use.
-- ghunchu'wI'
