tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 28 15:29:16 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: mathematics
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: mathematics
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:40:06 -0700
DaH jIQochbe', charghwI'. When I first wrote it, I used a purpose
clause. Then I changed my mind and went the other way. Reading it again
after I sent and received it, I like the purpose clause better again.
rejmorgh vIDalaw'.
pagh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William H. Martin [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 3:50 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: mathematics
>
> According to Andeen, Eric:
> >
> > *1 - I used the thing which was to be done as the object of <pon>,
> and
> > (if necessary), the person to be persuaded would become an indirect
> > object: [<action> matlhvaD 'e' ponlaH *Okrand*]. An alternative
> usage
> > would be to make the direct object the person to be persuaded and
> stick
> > the action in a purpose clause [... qonmeH matlh chaq ponlaH
> *Okrand*],
> > with matlh as an unstated direct object. I don't know which one is
> > correct, so I took a guess.
> >
> > pagh
>
> I respect the thought you put into this concern. I think I'd
> tend to guess the other way, simply because "persuade" and
> "convince" both take the person as direct object, and {-meH}
> does such a good job of tying the action in for this particular
> verb.
>
> charghwI'