tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 06 14:20:45 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:20:21 EDT
HomDoq writes:
>O.K. next try :-)
>
>qawchu'chugh...
>
><<qIpmeH Qatlh'a'?>> is canon.
>I suppose we can infer that <<qIpmeH Qatlh>> is proper too.
qay'be'.
>Within the context, this supposedly means the same as
><<Qatlh nejwI' qIpmeH Qu'>> or <<Qatlh qIpmeH Qu'>> eliding
>the obvious <<nejwI'>>.
>
bIqar.
As in the canon phrase {nargh qaSuchmeH 'eb}.
>So, could we say that, as <<Qu'>> is the "obvious" subject,
>we want to clip it for brevity; but now the {-meH} clause
>has nothing to attach to anymore and thus drifts before the
>verb?
>
Well... I'd rather say we have two different ways to say approximately the
same thing (and of the two, I'm tending to prefer the <Qual V-meH Qu'> form).
In both cases, it appears that it is permissible, but not required, to drop
the actual subject (eg. {Qu'}).
-- ter'eS