tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 20 17:25:36 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-meH} and its useage
|At 23:32 98-01-09 -0800, 'eQ wrote:
|}Voragh wrote:
|}> or you could put the -meH clause last:
|}> (ghaH) HIv SuvwI', tonSaw' ghojmeH loDHom.
|}
|}Really?! TKD (p64) states: "The purpose clause [whose verb end in -meH]
|}*always precedes* the noun or verb whose purpose it is describing."
|}(Epathsize added) Is there newer canon I do no know of, to support your
|}opinion here?
|
|'eQ and TKD are correct. I see ghunchu'wI' had some wise things to say on
|this, too.
|
|Qov [email protected]
Errr... DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'!
Nope. No new canon, I was just experimenting and overlooked this feature of
-meH clauses. I don't keep my TKD at work and answered 'eQ during my lunch
hour. Many of the Type 9 syntactic markers can be used on clauses used
second in the sentence (though conventional style nearly always puts them
first), and I thought varying the position of the -meH clause might clear
up the ambiguity. So much for that idea...
That'll learn me (as we used to say back home) to try answering a
grammatical question without checking my notes first!
Voragh