[87033] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Comparatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tracy Canfield)
Tue Nov 24 14:36:46 2009
In-Reply-To: <f1d476f10911241130i2342f8f1hd4f1e7c3ac8bf993@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:35:15 -0500
From: Tracy Canfield <toastrix@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Strictly, no, it doesn't say that. The only place in the adjective
section that it says *only* -qu may appear is when a Type 5 suffix is
attached.
2009/11/24 ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <qunchuy@alcaco.net>:
> 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'
>
>
>
>
