[87032] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Comparatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Tue Nov 24 14:32:09 2009
In-Reply-To: <1cb7130b0911241108s14c3be28ic2488a46bbd38d5c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:30:31 -0500
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Tracy Canfield <toastrix@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...TKD says -qu' may follow verbs functioning
> adjectivally, but it doesn't say other suffixes *can't* occur.
Read the section on adjectives again (it's short, I'll wait). :)
See there? It *does* say no other suffixes besides {-qu'} may be used.
Of course, we now know it to be too strong a prohibition. The real
rule is generally accepted to permit only *rovers* on verbs acting
adjectivally.
-- ghunchu'wI'
