tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 05 19:59:57 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Trying to translate qIDHom
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Trying to translate qIDHom
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 22:59:46 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromQov on Fri, 2 Jan 1998 20:12:24 -0800 (PST))
>Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 20:12:24 -0800 (PST)
>From: Qov <[email protected]>
>
>At 19:36 98-01-02 -0800, Qermaq wrote:
>}peqaw - chaq qabqu' Qermaq qIDmey, 'ach qaybe'!
>}
>}ghItlh Qov:
>}
>}<veng wa'DIchDaq ghaHtaH> alone is "He is in the First City". To say "The
>}warrior is in the First City", we need to add <SuvwI''e'> because the
>}pronoun <ghaH> acts as a verb, right? (I find no canon to explicitly support
>}it or forbid it, but it seems consistent with other 6.3. usage.) So in this
>}case I believe I added <-'e'> correctly. No emphasis on <SuvwI'> intended or
>}implied.
>
>bIlugh. jIQonglaw'.
Hmm. See, I've never been sure about this one. The mandatory -'e' seems
to be given only when a pronoun is used to "equate" two nouns, i.e. N
pronoun N'e'. In this case, we're not equating anything; this is
qualitatively different. We're using the pronoun as an existential "to
be", not an equation. I think we went through this once before. I tend to
think that the -'e' really isn't necessary here. Canon disagrees with me,
in that it seems always to have the -'e', so what do I know? I could
answer that those happens to be sentences in which the noun is emphasized,
but that's reaching. Even assuming I'm right (for whatever reason you'd do
something like that), I could easily see that language development would
select towards requiring the -'e' in this case, as speakers try to make the
similar constructions conform to one another.
~mark