tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 11 12:19:19 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: muHIvqa' veqlargh

From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: muHIvqa' veqlargh
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 15:17:47 EDT
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9504101837.A5448-0100000@netcom4>; from "R.B Franklin" at Apr 10, 95 11:04 pm

I really like yoDtargh's prose. Still, a comment:

According to R.B Franklin:
...
> > *North America*Daq bIH wa'maH Daq.
> > *Europe*Daq biH cha' Daq.
> 
> In constructions of this type, if the subject is a noun, it needs the 
> {-'e'} suffix.  'ay' jav DoD wej yIlaD.
> [North America]Daq bIH wa'maH Daq'e'.
> [Europe]Daq bIH cha' Daq'e'.

Not quite. The first noun is a locative, not an object.
Actually, the use of pronouns as "to be" here is possibly
misguided.  I would have said:

[North America]Daq wa'maH Daq tu'lu'.
[Europe]Daq cha' Daq tu'lu'.

> > -- ghunchu'wI' Doy'
> 
> yoDtargh

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Follow-Ups:
- Re: muHIvqa' veqlargh
  - From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>

References:
- Re: muHIvqa' veqlargh
  - From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Eeek ! (was: Re: tlhIngan Hol versus klingonaase)
Next by Date: Re: -vaD vs. -Daq on pronouns
Prev by thread: Re: muHIvqa' veqlargh
Next by thread: Re: muHIvqa' veqlargh
Index(es):