[tlhIngan Hol] placing {-lu'} on {'oH} and {ghaH}

[Will Martin]

Interesting. On one hand, you could say, {‘ame’rIqa’ tu’lu’wI’ ghaH _qolombaS’e’}, but the scope of genitive functionality includes saying the same thing as  {‘ame’rIqa’ tu’wI’ ghaH _qolombaS’e’}. America’s discoverer is the one who discovered America. 

Unless America lays claim to a guy who is widely known for discovering stuff other than America, itself... which would fit the second term, but not the first...

Sent from my iPhone. 
Will

> On Jul 5, 2019, at 12:13 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you charghwI' for taking the time to reply.
> 
> Indeed it is uncommon and strange. Perhaps the strange thing with it is, being used to seeing {'oH} and/or {ghaH} with something definite, and suddenly seeing it with the indefinite suffix.
> 
> Anyway, as you pointed out, the need never arises to use something like it, so this question was purely theoretical.
> 
> And if I remember correctly, something similar may be happening with the simultaneous use of {-lu'} and {-wI'}. i.e. writing something like {leghlu'wI'}.
> 
> I think, in a thread here was said, that although *technically* it doesn't break any rules, it would be rather strange to say "someone/something who/which sees, but who/is is indefinite too".
> 
> ~ bkbhkk
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org