tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 12 18:18:48 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'e' and all that rot...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 15:45:29 -0700
>From: [email protected]
>This makes me think of a couple things I've wanted to ask about 'e'.
>First, can I use 'e' in series? (I've seen folks do this, and most
>of the time it makes sense to me.) Example: wIHoH 'e' manIDnIS
>'e' vIQub. "I think (that) we need to try to kill them." Is this
>grammatically correct?
'e' vIHar. :)
That seems to be the implication of what TKD says about 'e'. If it can be
object of one verb to make a phrase, then it can refer to *that* phrase,
can't it? And so on.
>Second, I came across something while writing a note to someone which
>I thought made sense. I wanted to use *'e'mo'*, meaning "because of
>that (previous topic)". I saw 'e' in the word list as a pronoun, so I
>thought it might work. ::shrug:: Thoughts?
IMO, the pronoun 'e' can take NO suffixes. Note that's just my opinion.
But we've never seen it (that I know of). Since -mo' is a verb suffix, you
don't really need it: instead of {*jIQuch, 'e'mo' jImon} you can just as
easily say {jIQuchmo' jImon}. If you're doing the 'e' in conversation
trick, responding to someone else's statement, I'd prefer to hear
"ghu'vetlhmo'" or "qechvetlhmo'" or "ngoDvetlhmo'" or something. I don't
trust 'e' with suffixes.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMg/XlcppGeTJXWZ9AQGgogL/UfUUvlt7VdX9ZHi0mqslmrtxEVhKlwzH
HFbPiKDJeHOwSuq/Su+9x/s/NIo49k/ooX/cbzauTnUGRHaNJ2wGwu+yKMzheT9K
421y6BKnrr/XHqsXBxQ2uJW22QHyhzlP
=cDPu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----