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

[mayqel qunenoS]

However, if the {vumlu'wI'} is indeed a meaningless word due to the
presence of {-lu'}, then I wonder why there hasn't anywhere (in a book)
being made a reference, with regards to the fact that the {-lu'} and {-wI'}
can't co-exist in the same word.

qunnoq

On Aug 26, 2017 15:36, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20170826/4a3c958e/attachment-0016.htm>