tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 08 00:00:21 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Practice with -meH
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Practice with -meH
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 23:59:38 -0700
- Importance: Normal
mujang ghunchu'wI':
> tuv'el jang Qov:
Qov vImojpu''a'? qatlh muja' pagh?
>>>> The prisoner escaped by making a tunnel.
>>> narghmeH 'och chenmoH qama'.
>>
>> majQa'. This one actually works with the <narghmeH> modifying
>> the <'och> OR the <chenmoH>. It could be either, but both have
>> the same meaning. <narghmeH qama', 'och chenmoH> would also
>> work, but it can only modify the verb.
>
> "The prisoner makes an escape tunnel."
> "In order that he escapes, the prisoner makes a tunnel."
> Neither of the possibilities really says he *used* the tunnel.
> I see the original idea as more of a cause-and-effect idea
> than a purpose:
>
> 'och chenmoHmo' qama' narghta'.
The point of the exercise was to use <-meH>, so that's what tuv'el did.
>>>> The bird of prey didn't have enough power to raise shields.
>>> botjan chu'meH HoS yap Hutlh toQDuj.
>>
>> majQa'. pup.
>
> I also like to avoid overworking {ghaj}, but {Hutlh} seems to have
> the same problem for me. Here's my phrasing for this sentence:
>
> botjan chu'meH yapbe' toQDuj HoS.
I don't think there's anything wrong with this use of <Hutlh>. <ghaj> often
gets stretched beyond its real meaning because the English "have" is so
broad, but I don't think that is the case here. As a matter of style, it's
never a bad idea to avoid <ghaj> and <Hutlh> when possible, and your
sentence is at least as good, but there is nothing wrong with the setnence
tuv'el came up with.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian