tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 24 22:58:41 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} KLBC: wamwI'
- From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} KLBC: wamwI'
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 19:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
On Thu, 24 Aug 1995, Marc Ruehlaender wrote:
> > If you use {ghoS} to mean "to approach" you don't need {-Daq}. (TKD p. 28)
> yes. but do I need it when ghoS is to be 'go away'?
Yes, I think so.
> e.g. HuD(Daq?) nadevvo' jIghoS
> 'I'm leaving for the mountains'
When you use {ghoS}, the thing you are approaching is the direct object of
the verb, so I think you would say: naDevvo' HuD vIghoS. (I go away from
here, towards the mountain.)
> in summary, how about
>
> pemHovvaD vanDaj nobpu'DI'
> Ha'DIbaH wamlu'bogh SamlI'meH
> nadevvo' ghoSchoH 'ej Dechbogh HatlhDaq leng
>
> (is it clear that the dependent clauses
> refer to S1 'ej S2, or would one be confused
> by the possibility that they only refer to
> naDevvo' ghoSchoH?)
I think that the {pemHovvaD vanDaj nobpu'DI'} part clearly refers to the
entire sentence. But although the purpose clause {Ha'DIbaH wamlu'bogh
SamlI'meH} does refer to the purpose of {naDevvo' ghoSchoH} and not
specifically to {Dechbogh HatlhDaq leng} I don't think it results in any
ambiguity. The average reader would probably deduce that these actions
are connected. Only an attorney writing a legal document would require
the specificity of putting a second {SamlI'meH} in front of {Dechbogh
HatlhDaq leng}.
> Marc
yoDtargh