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. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 29, 2020, at 11:15 AM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Jul 29, 2020, at 7:38 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Does this kind of historical connection mean that we can't use the suffix -laH on the {lo'laH} ?
Regardless of its supposed etymology, {lo'laH} is a verb in its own right. Grammatically, it should accept suffixes just like any verb. The second syllable might have been a suffix at one time, but it’s just part of the word now.
I suggest that {QongDaqDaq} is a relevant example.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org