[88078] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mu' chu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv)
Mon Jul 26 16:09:30 2010
From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikQTzxwvE4VpKssL+6EmtMC6P_cdQY33-_atyC6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:04:43 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Of course, once we say that {wa'DIch} can be used adverbially, it follows that after {wa'DIch} comes {cha'DIch}, {wejDIch}, etc. until any given instructional sequence is complete. Otherwise, we're stuck using {ghIq} over and over again... unless {veb} also has an adverbial usage... Likely not.
pItlh.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
On Jul 26, 2010, at 12:39 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
> ja' Voragh:
>> Time for the ritual post-qep'a' question: Any new words from Okrand this year?
> ...
> We also saw an apparently adverbial {wa'DIch}, confirming that the
> {wa'DIch jagh'e' wIHeghmoHmo'} line in {taHjaj wo'} is appropriate
> usage.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>
