[tlhIngan Hol] using {-lu'} in conjunction with {-ghach}

[Hugh Son puqloD]

> On Jan 16, 2020, at 09:23, "jevreh at qeylis.net" <jevreh at qeylis.net> wrote:
> 
> I can see where being able to do something like leghlu’boghwI’ might be useful.

{-bogh} and {-wI'} are both type 9. But yeah, I think anyone trying to do something with {-lu'} + {-wI'} would be better served by doing something with {-bogh} instead, in most cases, e.g., {vay' leghlu'bogh}.

> Following your idea of disambiguation, perhaps the writer forgot that we have Da that is specifically that kind of “act”?

I wasn’t talking about disambiguating the verb “act”, but disambiguating different uses of “action” as a noun. For example, contrast these definitions of “action” from Merriam-Webster:

> 1a: a thing done : DEED
> b: the accomplishment of a thing usually over a period of time, in stages, or with the possibility of repetition
> cactions plural : BEHAVIOR, CONDUCT
> unscrupulous actions
> d: INITIATIVE, ENTERPRISE
> a man of action

(There’s many more definitions, but 1a and 1d sufficiently capture the distinction I was talking about. I don’t think any of these subdefinitions under (1) aligns with {Da} but I do think some of the others which I haven’t reproduced here do.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200116/2b7ee4fa/attachment-0016.htm>