[86647] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The meaning of -moH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Fri Oct 9 07:10:22 2009
In-Reply-To: <be1.66dca9e5.37ff5c4f@wmconnect.com>
From: "ghunchu'wI'" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 07:03:07 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Oct 8, 2009, at 11:16 AM, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote:
> mumISmoH mu'tlheghmeylIj.
> First you say only no-object prefixes are used with {Qong}, then
> you say
> such prefixes are *not* used with {Qong}.
Sorry, I mangled the context. Before I rearranged and consolidated
my words, "such prefixes" referred to "prefixes indicating an object".
I think TKD says that {Qong} does not have an object.
-- ghunchu'wI'
