tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 19 07:26:57 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Quj bej Holtej qorDu'
According to Holtej:
>
> > > poS yotlh Sum 'ay'maj. Quj wIbejlaHchu'.
> >
> > Dajqu':
> >
> > "Our section is near left field."
> >
> > "Our section of the near field is open."
> >
> > poS yotlhDaq poS 'ay'raj, qar'a'?
>
> /poS yotlhDaq Sum 'ay'maj/ 'e' DaHech 'e' vIHech'a'? I thought about this,
> and concluded that I'm not sure if stative verbs *cannot* take an object.
> In most cases it's clear they don't, (like */Soj vIghung/ doesn't make any
> sense, at least I don't think so), but /Duj vISum/ might. I guess I was
> over-analyzing it.
DIch vIghajbe'. I think you have a valid question; one I've
wondered many times already. "Be near" does seem ripe for an
object, though it is one of those verbs beginning with "be". It
is an interesting verb, since it both strongly suggests an
object, as you have used it, {Duj vISum} and it suggests that
it could be used adjectivally {Duj Sum yIghoS!}. I can't think
of any other verb that does this, except perhaps for the {lo'}
and {lo'laH} split, which is resolved by calling {lo'laH} a
separate, independant verb.
> > > qaStaHvIS *inning* chorghDIch, Hoch 'eb jonHa' juHqo' ghom. vagh moQ
> > > chuHwI' [3] wInatlh. rInDI' *inning*vam, juHDaq qet vagh ghol
> > QujwI'. not
> > > juSqa' ghommaj.
> >
> > Do'Ha'. batlh Hegh'a' vay'?
>
> ghobe' jay'! regh pagh, Hegh pagh. ghu'vammo' Dal Quj! (jISaghbe'ba'.)
vIleghbe'mo' jIQuch. batlh Quj Dal DaSIQta'.
> > > SKI: Holtej won tickets to the ballgame, and took his family.
> > >
> > > --Holtej
> >
> > charghwI'
>
> .-=-. Holtej
charghwI'