tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 28 06:08:01 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Verb quantification: KLBC
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: Verb quantification: KLBC
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 08:12:00 -0500
charghwI' writes:
>[...]
>qelI'qam 'ar tIQ bIQtIQvam?
>[...]
>Or do we use kelicams as one of those nouns which is
>neither subject nor object and comes at the beginning of a
>sentence, in this example explaining something about the
>river being long? I like this last version, though I had
>never considered it before. I think it is my favorite.
It comes out looking a lot like Esperanto, but the explanation is
reasonable. I would understand it, and I think I would have been
able to understand it before I saw this theory.
There *is* a way to ask how long a river is without proposing new
grammar, though:
bIQtIq juvlu'meH qelI'qam 'ar toghnISlu'?
"To measure the river, how many kellicams must be counted?"
Remember what the action is here -- we're trying to *measure* it.
The answer is similarly unambiguous:
loSmaH qelI'qam toghnISlu'.
"One must count forty kellicams."
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj