<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br>On Jun 4, 2019, at 12:16, De'vID <<a href="mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 18:31, Steven Boozer <<a href="mailto:sboozer@uchicago.edu">sboozer@uchicago.edu</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_-154673404855702436WordSection1"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:4pt">
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">According to a post by taD from June 2003, apparently Okrand was not involved. </span></p>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div>In that case, it's not an example in a canonical text.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div>Do'Ha'. I guess this means we’re back to not knowing with certainty what sense(s) of the English verb “add” {chel} covers, unless there’s a canon example (other than inference from {chelwI'}) that even voragh doesn’t know about.</body></html>