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

[SuStel]

On 7/29/2020 11:56 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> 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.

The word *lo'laH*/be valuable/ appears in the first edition of TKD 
(published 1985), but is not used in a sentence until TKW in 1996: 
*leghlaHchu'be'chugh mIn lo'laHbe' taj jej*/A sharp knife is nothing 
without a sharp eye./ It is used only one more time, in KGT in 1997: 
*lo'laHbe'; chetvI' chIm rur*/worthless as an empty torpedo tube./ In 
neither case is it used to modify a noun.

Bearing that in mind, where do you get the story that he created 
*lo'laH* as a retrofit for an error? 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.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200729/d0ea149f/attachment-0015.htm>