Interesting. On one hand, you could say, {‘ame’rIqa’ tu’lu’wI’ ghaH _qolombaS’e’}, but the scope of genitive functionality includes saying the same thing as {‘ame’rIqa’ tu’wI’ ghaH _qolombaS’e’}. America’s discoverer is the one who discovered America. Unless America lays claim to a guy who is widely known for discovering stuff other than America, itself... which would fit the second term, but not the first... Sent from my iPhone. Will
On Jul 5, 2019, at 12:13 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you charghwI' for taking the time to reply.
Indeed it is uncommon and strange. Perhaps the strange thing with it is, being used to seeing {'oH} and/or {ghaH} with something definite, and suddenly seeing it with the indefinite suffix.
Anyway, as you pointed out, the need never arises to use something like it, so this question was purely theoretical.
And if I remember correctly, something similar may be happening with the simultaneous use of {-lu'} and {-wI'}. i.e. writing something like {leghlu'wI'}.
I think, in a thread here was said, that although *technically* it doesn't break any rules, it would be rather strange to say "someone/something who/which sees, but who/is is indefinite too".
~ bkbhkk _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org