tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 22 06:46:57 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: targhmey ghopDu' je
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: targhmey ghopDu' je
- Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 09:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Faber" at May 21, 96 07:50:45 pm
According to Faber:
>
> >According to Faber:
> >>
> >> HISla', charghwI'. targh tal law' tera'nganvetlh tal puS 'ej wIleghlaHbej.
...
> >> puj je QIp ghaH tera'nganvetlh 'e'.
...
> QaghwIj. <val> 'oH <tal>'e' 'ej <puj je QIp> 'oH <puj QIp je>.
> lugh'a' 'oH? jISovba'Qo'
HIja' 'ej ghobe'.
targh val law' tera'nganvetlh val puS. lugh mu'tlheghvam.
*puj QIp je ghaH tera'nganvetlh 'e'*. lughHa'qu'
mu'tlheghqoqvam.
puj tera'nganvetlh 'ej QIp je ghaH.
<'ej> lo'nIS wotmey. To join two verbs, use {'ej} between the
verbs. To join two nouns, use {je} after the nouns. To add the
meaning "also" to a verb, use {je} after the verb. We presume
that to mean "before the subject", though Okrand does not
explicitly say that and I don't know of any canon where he has
shown the use of {je} to mean "also" with a verb with an
explicit subject.
Meanwhile, it makes a lot more sense that way, so it won't be
misinterpreted as a noun conjunction instead of as an adverbial.
But I digress...
> Qapla'
> toQDuj "Hegh 'etlh" la', HoHwI'
charghwI'
--
reH lugh charghwI' net Sov.