tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 12 09:49:00 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Relative sentences
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Relative sentences
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 95 12:48:58 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "William H. Martin" at Apr 12, 95 12:26 pm
According to William H. Martin:
...
> > Dujchaj lu'avmeH HoD beqpu'Daj je pu'Hom'e' lulo'be'bogh vISuq 'e' vItlhobta'.
After pointing out why I don't like this, I failed to offer an
alternative, so I revisit it. In doing so, I have a revellation.
Dujchaj lu''avmeH HoD beqpu'Daj je pu'Hom lulo'nISbe'bogh vISuq
vItlhobta'.
As I see it, a {-meH} clause implies {-nIS} on the main verb.
Stop here and think about that.
So the problem is whether the negation applied to the main verb
should be applied to the root or to the {-nIS}. If we make the
{-nIS} explicit, the grammar makes this simple, and once again,
Klingon expresses the thought more clearly than English.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |