tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 23 01:46:22 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: FINALLY!!!!
According to Guido:
>
> "finally" mughlu'meH mu'mey chup charghwI''e':
> >How about:
>
> >pItlh! SoHvaD HIloSQo'qu'qa'moH!
>
> Yes. It'd be good, except that {-Qo'} normally goes after all other suffixes
> unless there's a type 9, right? It would be imesho clearer anyhow if the
> {-Qo'} was at the end. Also, you're tredding on thin ice with a
> double-predicate causative here. Recall that there is no {-vaD} involved with
> the verb {loS}, as it is given in TKD as "wait *for*", indicating
> transitivity.
Oops. I don't use {-Qo'} a lot, and instead of looking it up,
like I should have, I just used it. I remembered that it had a
fixed position, unlike {-be'}, but I falsely remembered it in
the class with the other non-roving rover, {-Ha'}, which always
follows directly after the verb.
The {-vaD} was a conscious choice, though apparently
ill-considered. Otherwise, it becomes {SoH HIloS'qu'qa'moHQo'},
which struck me as a little confusing. This is one of those
strange situations where you have an object of the causative
and a DIFFERENT object of the main verb.
So, would it have carried the meaning as well to cast it as in
the following?
qaloS 'e' yInI'qu'qa'moHQo'!
This strikes me as strange, but possible. It weirdly
accomplishes a sentence as subject construction, since the
object of causation is the subject of the main verb with {-moH}.
I read it as "Do not again cause that I wait for you be very
long!" or "Do not again cause it to be long that I wait for
you!" Notice the "it" in the second translation. That's the
generic "it" we usually do not allow ourselves to use, warning
us of the Sentence As Subject, but THIS time, it exists because
of {-moH} turning the object of causation {'e'} into the
subject of the main verb {nI'}.
This device only works for intransitive verbs, like {nI'}.
Reactions?
charghwI'