tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 05 04:23:10 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QaghmeywIj
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: QaghmeywIj
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 07:23:26 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998 23:42:30 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
> HIvqa' veqlargh vaj jItlhIj
> lugh ghunchu'wI'
> cha'maH wejvatlh wejmaH rep tagh The ExperienceDaq 'oHbogh tlhoghtay
> veSqa' tuq jeSwI'pu' chaH
Dap. batlh bInID, 'ach vonlu'. *relative clause* Dabe' <cha'maH
wejvatlh wejmaH rep tagh The Experience>. mu'tlheghna' 'oH.
rarlaHbe' 'oH <-Daq> je.
<X-Daq 'oHbogh tlhoghtay veSqa' tuq jeSwI'pu' chaH> vIyajlaHbe'
je. <veSqa' tuq tlhoghtay jeSwI'pu'> mojnIS <tlhoghtay veSqa'
tuq jeSwI'pu'> 'e' vIpIH. lathmey vIyajbe'bej.
> lumuch TV stations 'e' vIbej vIneHbej je jIH
Do you want to watch the TV stations which present it, or do you
want to watch that the TV stations present it? You said the
latter. I suspect you meant the former.
> muchpu'DI' SoQ vImughta'bogh wISovlaHchu'
"We can perfectly know the speech which I have successfully
translated when he has presented it."?
> How's that for moving -Daq to another part of the sentence? Does it work?
Nope. To be honest, I'm not sure it would be worth learning how
to get it right. Even right, it would be ugly. This new
construction is really only useful in very exceptional cases
which, by accident as much as anything else, fail to be as
ambiguous as this construction would generally be in most cases.
> peHruS
charghwI'