tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 13 03:24:55 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QoghIj qaD
ghItlh Qermaq:
>Technically, is this really our familiar QAO?
In my opinion, no. Look at these two:
>vay' vIje' vIneH.
>[...]
>nuq vIje' vIneH?
"For .. nuq what? the question word fits into the sentence in the position
that would be occupied be the answer"
"Both 'Iv and nuq are treated as nouns..."
"..., the object is being questioned, so the question word goes in the
object position, before the verb."
(TKD p.69)
All these rules apply in the above sentence.
BTW, this QAOqoq is still a question. It is not the same as *nuqDaq 'oH
puchpa''e' 'e' vISov*.
>Now, the thing that makes this work for me - I almost see the <vIneH> as a
>verb suffix. (Put the painstik away, Qov!) (Besides, charghwI' expressed
>similar sentiments earlier.) I know it's not, and it doesn't actually act as
>one, but it has that feel.
I feel the same.
It's like {nuq vIje'qang?}
>Qermaq
muHwI'