tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 13 22:01:26 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC> HaDIbaHpu' le' mach
I really like the answer:
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> ter'eS writes:
...
> >My intention in this sentence was to avoid a literal object. {Doch rap}
> >seems too concrete to me; I think {Doch} should refer only to actual
> >physical items. {ta'} seems more goal-oriented than Pinky's question
> >warrants.
>
> One of the nifty tools I've found for recasting questions is to ask "how"
> instead of "what". TKD 6.4 gives {chay' jura'} "What are your orders?"
> (page 70). So one might ask {DaHjaj ram chay' mavang?} instead of asking
> {DaHjaj ram nuq wIqaSmoH?}. Pinky's question indeed is open-ended, with
> no hint of a goal; but Brain's answer certainly deserves the use of {ta'}.
majQa'! qechvam vItIvqu'.
Meanwhile, I'd give an even stronger answer to:
> >Can you use a verb with {-bogh} by itself as an object? That is, can
> >{wIqaSmoHtaHbogh} mean "that which we are doing"?
>
> There's no rule against it, but this usage is very unclear. It could
> as easily mean "we who keep making it happen." If you're going to use
> {qaSmoH}, then the "generic" object should probably be {wanI'}.
While there is no explicit rule against it, using a relative
verb with no explicit noun is gibberish. The relative clause
describes a noun. You need a noun there to describe. Otherwise,
it would be like using an adjectival without a preceeding noun,
which cannot be interpreted as an adjectival. It would instead
be interpreted as a verb. Example:
verb: tIn Duj.
adjectival: Duj tIn vIghaj.
el mistako: *tIn vIghaj.*
That third option fails to mean "I have something which is
big". If you want a verb which is not acting as a main verb to
describe a noun, you need the noun. You don't need a rule to
tell you that you need a noun. You just need a noun.
> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |