[87818] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (MorphemeAddict)
Thu Feb 11 13:43:28 2010
In-Reply-To: <4B7402B2.4070009@trimboli.name>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:32:18 -0500
From: MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Since they are (according to you) mutually incompatible, it's possible to
give them the meaning that André Müller suggests, namely the nominalization
of the *object*.
lay'tel SIvten
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
