tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 10 08:59:14 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Phrases
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Phrases
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:59:04 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from Ivan ADerzhanski on Mon, 3 Feb 1997 06:39:15 -0800)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 06:39:15 -0800
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
>
><copying it from SuStel's post>
>{tlhutlhmeH HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS.} Hm. Should that not be
>{tlhutlhlu'meH ...}? Otherwise who's the subject of the purpose clause?
Canon has "-meH" clauses with implied indefinite subject: Dochvetlh DIlmeH
Huch 'ar DaneH? Krankor pointed that out to me once long ago.
>And what about (quoting from memory) {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn
>qaq puS} `Better to die standing that to live kneeling', with {-vIS}-
>clauses (short for {-taHvIS}, we are told) in both branches of the
>comparative?
Better example for "law'/puS", but now *I* wonder about the missing
"-lu'". Besides, this sounds like an Okrandian backfit.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMv9T1cppGeTJXWZ9AQFS5QMAsvPkFMDcTcHZ2cdSrxFDLl/eHhcFKEcb
BwIiFp/zl1DNePtPG3Xt4AObLllfbnXsd9AzApH0Mc1IwIoxNunQLaPqEVlDwsFi
O/9KZ8JaBB9s6v0bTBeGLtjnSbjBdxyS
=ZktO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----