[87813] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Thu Feb 11 08:15:44 2010
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:14:26 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <6038b7231002110503h658e2b30h303e959aab9afa54@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On 2/11/2010 8:03 AM, André Müller wrote:
> Dear all, I always wondered how best to translate the word
> "question". So far I always rephrased the sentence to avoid
> constructing a lengthy nominal phrase involving the verbs {tlhob} or
> {ghel} (both mean "to ask").
There's your problem right there. Don't construct a lengthy nominal
phrase. Rephrase with a simple verb.
> Now, while looking through {ghIlghameS} I had an idea: As {-lu'}
> means more or less "someone verbs" (with a change of A and P for the
> pronominal prefixes), and {-wI'} means "someone who does" OR
> "something which does", is it possible to create a patient
> nominalization with {-lu'wI'}?
>
> So, does {tlhoblu'wI'} mean "that which is asked" (i.e. the question
> or request)? I think, the word I found in {ghIlghameS} was something
> like {leghbe'lu'wI'} = "the unseen", but I don't quite remember.
>
> Are such forms grammatical? Do we even have canon examples for this?
> Do you think it's a nice way to say "question" or "request"?
This is an old chestnut, and you won't find a consensus here. For my
money, this is not valid. {-wI'} nominalizes the verb into the subject,
but {-lu'} means the verb has no subject. The two are mutually incompatible.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
