tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 03 12:23:30 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: the casual use of {nuqneH}
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: the casual use of {nuqneH}
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 15:24:43 -0500
Daniel writes:
>The reason I wrote {jI-} in the second sentence, instead of {vI-}, was
>because I hadn't defind the object.
Whether you defined it or not, there still *is* an object. It can remain
unstated, but the meaning of the verb as you used it requires that the
prefix indicate that the object exists. {jIneH} means "I want." Wanting
is what I do. {vIneH} means "I want [it]." I desire something, but I
didn't say what it was in this sentence.
>>{cholegh vIneH} "I want you to see me." Note: {neH} is the only verb that
>>doesn't use {'e'} as its object in a construction like this (TKD 6.2.5).
>>{HuchlIj vIneH} "I want your money."
>
>Wouldn't it be {qa-} in the first sentence or is it because "...to see me."
>is the object instead of "you"?
It's because the object is the entire sentence "you see me". {neH} is a
bad example here. Other verbs use the pronoun {'e'} as the object, which
represents the previous sentence.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj