tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 03 22:11:04 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "under" (was KLBC:Name that Song)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: "under" (was KLBC:Name that Song)
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 01:10:32 -0400
In a message dated 96-06-01 03:03:23 EDT, you write:
>ghunchu'wI' corrects along the lines of:
>>> ... Need to use {jI-} instead of {-vI} because there is no object
>
>I see. My corrrection:
> {nagh bIngDaq jIyIn}
>
>beHwI"av wonders:
>> Isn't "a rock's below-area" an object.[?]
>
>Yes. That is, it is an object if the sentence is something like "Kick the
>rock's below-area!", or perhaps "You have seen the rock's below area".
>
>But in my sentence, it was not an object. There -was- no object, the main
>part of the sentence was just {jIyIn}: "I live." The rock's below-area was
>where the action is taking place, and thus took the {-Daq}.
Continuing my previous post: TKD p28 states "There are a few verbs whose
meanings include locative motions, such as {ghoS} 'approach, proceed.' The
locative suffix need not be used on nouns whicha re the objects (Note that
word objects) of such verbs."
This raises the possibility that the other Type 5 Noun Suffixes {-vo'},
{-mo'} and {-vaD} also mark Objects, to the Klingon grammarian, that is.
peHruS