Yes, there's no problem with it. If the semantics still make sense after nominalizing a verb with {-wI'} I see no problem. You could describe someone who is willing to learn Klingon as a {ghojqangwI'}, and someone who is afraid to speak a {jatlhvIpwI'}. And so on... we also have a few examples of canonical words involving {-wI'} and a verbal suffix: * {QaDmoHwI' DIr} = towel (lit.: dry-maker skin) * {Say'moHwI' tlhagh} = soap (lit.: clean-maker fat) * {Sut HabmoHwI'} = iron (lit.: clothing smooth-maker) I see no reason to think that this shouldn't work with other suffixes just as well. What's arguable not possible (but we don't know for sure, I think) is using {-wI'} on a verb with prefixes. I would probably not accept ?{muparHa'wI'} as a word for 'someone who likes me'. - André 2016-06-27 15:40 GMT+02:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
So far, I considered verb type 9 suffix {-wI'), as a suffix, one could use on a verb, which verb didn't have a preceding suffix. And I really don't know why I had that impression.
But recently, at another thread, I saw someone using the verb type 9 suffix {-wI'}, on a verb which had another type of verb suffix, preceding the {-wI'}.
So, I want to ask ; is this allowed ? Can I place the verb type 9 suffix, on a verb which has another verb suffix, preceding ?
Of course the question would be : "why would you want to ?". Right now I can't think of a reason. However I remember that the person who had used it this way, had actually created a construction which made perfect sense, and was appropriate for the occasion.
mop Hurgh qunnoq QeH SeHlu'bogh Hol 'oH tlhIngan Hol'e' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org