[tlhIngan Hol] can lo'laH take -laH ?

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Wed Jul 29 16:50:33 PDT 2020


On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:36, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> And when has it been proven that you can't use *-laH* on an adjectivally
> acting verb? I don't think you can, but I don't think it's ever been proven
> to be so.
>

Surely, this is forbidden by this sentence in TKD 4.4: "If a Type 5 noun
suffix is used (section 3.3.5), it follows the verb, which, when used to
modify the noun in this way, can have no other suffix except the rover
{-qu'} /emphatic/. The Type 5 noun suffix follows {-qu'}."

We now know that the exception to the rule should really have been
something like "except any rover other than {Qo'}", because we've seen
{-be'} ({wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'} from PK) and {-Ha'} ({Duj ngaDHa'} from KGT)
used on a verb acting as an adjective following a noun, but we have no
reason to believe that the rule as stated is wrong about non-rover suffixes.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200730/3524c60d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list