tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 26 12:26:26 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: *Iraq* noHHey
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: *Iraq* noHHey
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:26:34 -0500
From: Andeen, Eric <[email protected]>
>*Iraq* HIv *US* 'e' nabtaHvIS
>(*1), loQ QobchoH ghu'Daj.
>*1 - I *refuse* to abide by the "obscure rule" when it prevents me from
>putting a {-vIS} on a verb in a SAO construction just because I can't
>have a {-taH}. Suggest an alternative or deal with it.
*You* deal with it: it's not an "obscure" rule, it's a rule which is
overlooked by many and must be reckoned with whether you like it or not.
Three alternatives:
(1) *Iraq* HIvmeH *US* nabtaHvIS *US*, loQ QobchoH be'nalwI' ghu'.
"While the US is planning." This is legit. What is the purpose of the
planning? "In order for the US to attack Iraq."
(2) *Iraq* HIvtaH *US* 'e' nab *US*. nabtaHvIS, loQ QobchoH be'nalwI' ghu'.
TKD 6.2.5. says that in cases where a Type 7 suffix would be appropriate on
the second verb of the SAO, it "migrates" over to the first one, and the
meaning is intact.
Here, the extra {nabtaHvIS} could be left out, and the sentence would still
be clear.
(3) *Iraq* HIvtaH *US* 'e' nabmo' *US*, loQ QobchoH be'nalwI' ghu'.
This gives more of a cause-and-effect feeling, if that's what you intended.
Popular opinion on this list seems to be "go ahead and ignore the rule." I
find this unacceptable. Learn to integrate in just as you do every other
technicality of the language. I have. I cringe every time I see an illegal
Type 7 suffix, because I have trained myself not to do it, and to look for
alternative ways to express such a thing. It's really not hard; there's no
need to resort to illegal constructions.
SuStel
Stardate 98156.7