[86513] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nom*i*nal*ize 2. to convert (an underlying clause) into a noun phrase
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com)
Mon Sep 14 15:56:33 2009
From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:54:43 EDT
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In a message dated 9/14/2009 12:43:25 Eastern Daylight Time,
terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net writes:
> What's interesting about these is that these are different types of
> suffixes. From MO's description, it sounded like you couldn't use a naked verb
> plus {-ghach} because some sort of time or state was implied by {-ghach}
> that the naked verb didn't convey, so one had to use one of the "aspectual"
> suffixes, such as {-taH} or {-qa'}. But the only aspectual suffix in the
> above group is {-qa'}, and the others are more like modal suffixes. So maybe
> the need for an intervening suffix is more of a formal requirement than
> something inherent in the meaning of {-ghach}.
>
> -- ter'eS
>
That's been my understanding all along.
lay'tel SIvten
