<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 12/28/2018 10:53 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cKax81U7mv=fupw44Eb1kpzJH5jk1LbxG4znkSPkZNyvA@mail.gmail.com">In
order to use {-ghach} on a verb, this verb needs to have a suffix,
e.g. {naDqa'ghach} for "re-commendation".
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If though, this verb doesn't have a suffix of one
of the 9 types of verb suffixes, but has only a rover, then can
we {-ghach} it anyway ?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I know that we can say {naDHa'ghach} for
"discommendation", but since the {-Ha'} is a "fixed" rover (with
regards to its position in a verb), I was wondering:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Can we say e.g. {Quchbe'ghach} for "unhappiness" ?
Or {QuchQo'ghach} for "the condition/state of refusing to be
happy" ?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I believe this are all right. I'm more interested in, and less
certain about, words like <b>Quchbejghach</b><i> certain
happiness,</i> <b>Quchlaw'ghach</b><i> apparent happiness,</i>
and <b>Quchqu'ghach</b><i> great happiness.</i> They seem odd to
me, because they are using verb suffixes to do what noun suffixes
could do, if only you had a noun for <i>happiness.</i> Although <b>Quchba'ghach</b>
<i>obvious happiness</i> couldn't be done with a noun suffix.<br>
</p>
<p>By the way, I'd say that <b>QuchHa'ghach</b> is <i>unhappiness</i>
while <b>Quchbe'ghach</b> is simply a lack of happiness, but not
necessarily unhappiness.<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>