<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/26/2017 6:29 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+pck3GxGK1OWm4vX-JoV5Qhwk6-SSZ83+ETZtKyTizNQ@mail.gmail.com">Whenever
we place the {-wI'} on a verb, we produce the meaning "one who
does/is, thing which does/is".
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So, if we write {vumwI'} then we have the meaning
of "one who works".</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But if we wrote instead {vumlu'wI'}, then we would
seemingly/apparently get the meaning "someone (unspecified) who
works".</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So, the conclusion here is that "the {-wI'} used
on its own, talks of someone specified, while the use of it in
conjunction with {-lu'} talks of someone unspecified" ?</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>-wI'</b> doesn't mean someone specified does something; it
turns the verb into its own subject. A <b>vumwI'</b> is someone
who does <b>vum.</b> But a verb with <b>-lu'</b> has no subject,
so there is nothing for <b>-wI'</b> to turn the verb into.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>