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

[Alan Anderson]

On Jul 29, 2020, at 7:38 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Does this kind of historical connection mean that we can't use the
> suffix -laH on the {lo'laH} ?

Regardless of its supposed etymology, {lo'laH} is a verb in its own right. Grammatically, it should accept suffixes just like any verb. The second syllable might have been a suffix at one time, but it’s just part of the word now.

I suggest that {QongDaqDaq} is a relevant example.

-- ghunchu'wI'