I’d suggest that similar to {qeylIS’e’ lIjlaHbe’bogh vay’}, all of these would have been better formed with {-bogh} and {vay’}. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Oct 27, 2021, at 11:02 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
It’s been done, but rarely and never by Okrand AFAIK. I found only 5 more examples in my notes:
*chellu'wI' addendum, appendix [Qov] *leghbe'lu'wI' unseen (one) [GILGAMESH] *ngoHlu'wI' Christ (“anointed one”), messiah [KBTP] *poQlu'wI' defendant (i.e. litigant in lawsuit) [source?] *rachlu'wI' Augment (i.e. genetically enhanced) [source?]
-- Voragh
____________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol On Behalf Of mayqel qunen'oS
ruplu'wI' tax payer ("one who is taxed") (source?)
I think that although grammar-wise there's nothing which prohibits the simultaneous use of {-lu'} and {-wI'}, we usually don't do it for reason(s) I don't remember. I'm just writing this so as to prevent any beginner(s) from developing a habit of writing {-lu'wI'}.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org