[87034] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Comparatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Tue Nov 24 14:38:22 2009
In-Reply-To: <f1d476f10911241130i2342f8f1hd4f1e7c3ac8bf993@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:36:35 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
That section says that an adjectival verb with -Daq can't take
anything other than -qu'; it doesn't say anything about adjectives in
general being able to take other suffixes.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:30, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> 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'
>
>
>
>
