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

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 12:45 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

Maybe Marc Okrand assumed their incompatability was obvious and didn't feel the need to point it out. Or perhaps it simply never occured to him and nobody asked him about it. After all, the proper use of {-be'} in imperative verbs wasn't cleared up for 32 years.