[tlhIngan Hol] Interrogation words and type 5 noun suffixes

[DloraH]

nuv wa':  [mumble mumble]-wIj vIchIl
nuv cha': nuqlIj DachIl?





On Sun, 2017-12-03 at 20:12 +0100, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
> Thank you all for your replies - all duly noted! :)
> 
> And yes, I don't think it would make sense in any case to have other types
> of suffixes on 'Iv and nuq than type 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 2017-12-03 1:07 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name>:
> 
> > On 12/2/2017 5:18 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe there are examples of {'Iv} or {nuq} being used with
> > {-vaD} and {-mo'}. {​nuqDaq​} already provides a precedent for type 5
> > suffixes on question pronouns, though, and there's no rule explicitly
> > preventing using other type 5s on {'Iv} and {nuq}. {nuqvaD} and {'Ivmo'}
> > and so on all make clear sense semantically. You're probably fine to use
> > them.
> >
> > But we do have a canon example of *nuq'e' *(*Sojvetlh 'oH nuq'e'* from *Power
> > Klingon*), which further supports the idea that you can put noun suffixes
> > on these words. (My guess is that only type 5 suffixes would be allowed.)
> >
> > --
> > SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> > tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> > http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org