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.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org