tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 07 06:05:04 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ditransitives
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Ditransitives
- Date: Wed, 7 Jun 95 9:04:58 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Alan Anderson" at Jun 6, 95 10:50 am
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> 'Iwvan wrote:
...
> > How do we say `The ale is as green as grass'?
> > {SuDmo' HIq tI rur 'oH} somehow doesn't sound right.
>
> Actually, it sounds just fine to me, but there might be a better way.
> My first attempt is {tI rurmeH SuD HIq},...
Earlier, I said that {-meH} was a fine and underutilized
suffix, but in this case, I think it is carried a tad too far...
> but that seems to imply the
> color is somehow intentional.
qarlaw'. vIpar.
> How about {tI rurbogh SuD HIq}?
Eeeeew. I can't see this relative clause working, since it
looks like {tI} must be the head noun of rurbogh, but it is in
the position of object of {SuD}, which so far as I can tell,
can't take an object. The only way I can twist {-meH} into use
toward this meaning would be:
rurchuqmeH bIH, SuD tI HIq je.
Then again, if what you are really trying to convey is shock
that ale is GREEN, for God's sake, when of course everybody
knows it is supposed to be some other color, and it is SO green
that it would appropriately be compared to GRASS, then forget
the English idiom-cliche and say:
HIqvam SuD law' tI SuD puS.
Who cares if in fact the grass is actually somewhat greener
than the ale? The point is that you usually think of grass as
green and you usually think of ale as not green. This statement
makes that contrast to one's expectations.
> It's
> not perfectly grammatical, alas, but it sounds close. How about
> {tI rurmoHbogh SuD Hiq}? I'd better stop before I get too silly.
'eqqu'. You are treating {SuD} as if it were some kind of noun
or something, or like it could take an object.
SuDmo' HIq tI je rurchuq bIH.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |