[tlhIngan Hol] The {-wI'} and the {-lu'}

[mayqel qunenoS]

SuStel:
> A *vumwI'* is someone who does *vum.* But a verb with -> *lu'* has no
subject, so there is nothing for *-wI'* to turn the verb
> into.

So, this means that {vumlu'wI'} is grammatically correct, but as far as
it's meaning is concerned, it actually makes no sense because "due to the
{-lu'}, there is no subject who will be doing the {vum} ?"

qunnoq

On Aug 26, 2017 14:57, "SuStel" <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 8/26/2017 6:29 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> Whenever we place the {-wI'} on a verb, we produce the meaning "one who
> does/is, thing which does/is".
>
> So, if we write {vumwI'} then we have the meaning of "one who works".
>
> But if we wrote instead {vumlu'wI'}, then we would seemingly/apparently
> get the meaning "someone (unspecified) who works".
>
> So, the conclusion here is that "the {-wI'} used on its own, talks of
> someone specified, while the use of it in conjunction with {-lu'} talks of
> someone unspecified" ?
>
> *-wI'* doesn't mean someone specified does something; it turns the verb
> into its own subject. A *vumwI'* is someone who does *vum.* But a verb
> with *-lu'* has no subject, so there is nothing for *-wI'* to turn the
> verb into.
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170826/2ab2c619/attachment-0016.htm>