<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/29/2020 11:56 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:E39AC282-4418-4E55-A7B9-AD81BDDA4B29@mac.com">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.</blockquote>
<p>The word <b>lo'laH</b><i> be valuable</i> appears in the first
edition of TKD (published 1985), but is not used in a sentence
until TKW in 1996: <b>leghlaHchu'be'chugh mIn lo'laHbe' taj jej</b><i>
A sharp knife is nothing without a sharp eye.</i> It is used
only one more time, in KGT in 1997: <b>lo'laHbe'; chetvI' chIm
rur</b><i> worthless as an empty torpedo tube.</i> In neither
case is it used to modify a noun.</p>
<p>Bearing that in mind, where do you get the story that he created
<b>lo'laH</b> as a retrofit for an error? And when has it been
proven that you can't use <b>-laH</b> on an adjectivally acting
verb? I don't think you can, but I don't think it's ever been
proven to be so.<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>