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

[Will Martin]

Keep in mind that {lo’laH} can’t take {-laH} as a suffix WHILE BEING USED AFTER A NOUN, ADJECTIVALLY for the same reason {lo’} can’t take {-laH} while it’s being used adjectivally, which is the boo-boo Okrand made which created the verb root {lo’laH} in the first place.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

> On Jul 29, 2020, at 11:15 AM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy at alcaco.net> wrote:
> 
> 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'
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200729/916243e2/attachment-0015.htm>