However, if the {vumlu'wI'} is indeed a meaningless word due to the presence of {-lu'}, then I wonder why there hasn't anywhere (in a book) being made a reference, with regards to the fact that the {-lu'} and {-wI'} can't co-exist in the same word. qunnoq On Aug 26, 2017 15:36, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
A *vumwI'* is someone who does *vum.* But a verb with -> *lu'* has no subject, so there is nothing for *-wI'* to turn the verb into.
So, this means that {vumlu'wI'} is grammatically correct, but as far as it's meaning is concerned, it actually makes no sense because "due to the {-lu'}, there is no subject who will be doing the {vum} ?"
qunnoq
On Aug 26, 2017 14:57, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/26/2017 6:29 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Whenever we place the {-wI'} on a verb, we produce the meaning "one who does/is, thing which does/is".
So, if we write {vumwI'} then we have the meaning of "one who works".
But if we wrote instead {vumlu'wI'}, then we would seemingly/apparently get the meaning "someone (unspecified) who works".
So, the conclusion here is that "the {-wI'} used on its own, talks of someone specified, while the use of it in conjunction with {-lu'} talks of someone unspecified" ?
*-wI'* doesn't mean someone specified does something; it turns the verb into its own subject. A *vumwI'* is someone who does *vum.* But a verb with *-lu'* has no subject, so there is nothing for *-wI'* to turn the verb into.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org