[90492] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] verbs with prefix and -wI'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Fri Nov 4 20:13:26 2011
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>, "tlhIngan-Hol@KLI.org"
<tlhIngan-Hol@KLI.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 00:12:55 +0000
In-Reply-To: <4EB47B23.9010801@trimboli.name>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
I'm in pretty much the same boat as SuStel, but I think perhaps it's like with -ghach:
Adding it to a verb with a prefix is legal, but highly marked.
http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1994-09-holqed-03-3-a.txt&get=source
________________________________________
From: David Trimboli [david@trimboli.name]
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 00:54
To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] verbs with prefix and -wI'
On 11/4/2011 7:47 PM, Philip Newton wrote:
>
> Is it possible to add -wI' to verbs that have a prefix? Are there
> canon examples?
>
> For example, could I talk about a {munuQwI'} "something which annoys me"?
An oft-asked question. Personally, I don't think so. I think
nominalization takes priority over accord; it happens first. We've never
seen anything like it. And you can get the same result with {munuQbogh
vay'}.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
