tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 11 13:17:17 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Good day to die.
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 17:42:15 EDT
>According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>>
>> >From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>> >Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 17:26:51 EDT
>>
>> >...Note that when
>> >a verb has {-meH} on the end, it still needs an appropriate
>> >prefix indicating the person and number of the subject.
>>
>> This is a sticky point, actually. I used to be completely convinced that
>> what you say here is true... but Krankor disabused me of that notion.
>> Apparently, "-meH" is the exception, and can be used impersonally.
>> Consider the canon example from TKD: Dochvetlh DIlmeH Hugh 'ar DaneH?
>> (translated: how much do you want for that?) There is no prefix on
>> "DIlmeH", and third-person doesn't really work either. It appears that
>> purpose-clauses *can* be used in an impersonal fashion, after all. I try
>> to avoid it, but it does turn out mighty useful on occasion.
>I had been going by the examples given in 6.2.4, where clearly
>they are using prefixes (jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH) or are
>third person (ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla' - note missing
>space). Even if it is true that you may use or omit such
>prefixes for {-meH}, I personally am attracted to include them
>rather than omit them. It makes for so much more clarity.
I agree with you, and I, too, would rather see them than omit them.
>As for the counterexample, I could see a translation meaning
>"How much money do you want, in order that it buys that thing?"
I thought of that too, when Krankor pointed it out to me. And I didn't buy
it either. :)
>Still, it would have been much nicer as either {Dochvetlh
>jIDIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH?} or {Dochvetlh DIllu'meH Huch 'ar
>DaneH?}
It would have, but there we have it.
~mark