tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 16 14:03:20 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} charghwI' writes his first poem
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} charghwI' writes his first poem
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 14:03:20 -0400
>From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 9:15:42 METDST
>ghItlh yoDtargh:
>>
>jIghItlh:
>> > > the way I think it SHOULD work would be
>> > > no'wI' DaHoHta'bogh qa'pu'
>> > > but that is obviously not an allowed phrase
>>
>> Why is it not allowed? I think it should be {no'wI' DaHoHta'bogh qa'pu'}
>> and canon supports this type of construction.
>>
>the canon you cite is not in my possession :(
>from TKD I gathered that V-bogh always creates a
>clause which must function as a subject or object
>in a sentence - but if it works as "adjective" or
>"attribute", I'm fine... so would
Hrm. Good point. But it seems that it can also function attributively, as
yoDtargh's canon citations are pretty clear.
>HoHbogh Ha'DIbaH'e' qampu'
>be acceptable for "the feet of the animal which killed him"
>(if "him" has been specified in previous sentences) as opposed to
>HoHbogh Ha'DIbaH qampu'
>"the animal's feet which killed him"? i.e. in the first
>example the killer is the Ha'DIbaH whereas in the second
>it is the qampu'?
Er, it's qamDu'; only particularly putrid feet can be considered
sentient. :) I think you're right, except that the second sentence would
be ambiguous between the two meanings, not necessarily the one you cite
(after all, -'e' flagging is optional.)
~mark