tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 25 10:11:58 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: another <-bogh> que...
According to [email protected]:
>
> > yaS pIppu'bogh loD vIlegh
>
> I would translate back into English as "I see the man who hit the officer."
> To say "I see the man whom the officer hit," I would have used loD
> qIppu'bogh yaS 'e' loDvetlh vIlegh
>
> Comments welcome.
>
Okay. This is completely wrong. The pronoun {'e'} has exactly
one use, which is to act as object of the verb that follows it
and to represent the entire sentence that preceeds it. In your
case, {loDvetlh} is already the object of {vIlegh}, so {'e'}
cannot act as the object of {vIlegh} and the words that preceed
{'e'} form a relative clause, not a complete sentence.
What you want is to use the SUFFIX {-'e'}, not the PRONOUN
{'e'}. These are completely different things.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |