tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 15 06:06:17 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Relative sentences
- From: [email protected] (Bill Willmerdinger)
- Subject: Relative sentences
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 12:04:01
uu> From: "William H. Martin" <ur-valhalla!jm.acs.virginia.edu!whm2m>
uu> Subject: Relative sentences
> > Dujchaj lu'avmeH HoD beqpu'Daj je pu'Hom'e' lulo'be'bogh vISuq 'e'
uu> vItlhobta'.
uu> After pointing out why I don't like this, I failed to offer an
uu> alternative, so I revisit it. In doing so, I have a revellation.
uu> As I see it, a {-meH} clause implies {-nIS} on the main verb.
uu> Stop here and think about that.
This is an interesting point! "We *need* to do this for the purpose of doing
that." However, canon doesn't do this (does it?) so at best it's a implied by
the structure. While is certainly can't hurt, it isn't absolutely necessary.
uu> So the problem is whether the negation applied to the main verb
uu> should be applied to the root or to the {-nIS}. If we make the
uu> {-nIS} explicit, the grammar makes this simple, and once again,
uu> Klingon expresses the thought more clearly than English.
Hm! In this case, it certainly *does* make things clearer. Something to make
note of; it'll come in handy.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| $$$$$ $$$$$$$$$ $$$ $$$$$ | Sogh Qob vestai-qutvaj |
| $$$$ $$$ $$$$$$$$' | yaS cha'DIch, tlh.w.D. quttaj |
| $$$$ '$$ $$$$$$ | tlhIngan Hol yejHaD ghojwI' |
| $$$$ $$$$ $$ $$ | |
| $$$$ '$$' $$ | Internet: Bill.Willmerdinger@ |
| $$$ $$$ $$ | p1701.f477.n2613.z1.fidonet.org |
| $$$ $$$$$ $$$ | Fidonet: Bill Willmerdinger @ |
| $$$ $$$$$ $$$$ | 1:2613/477.1701 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+