tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 01 22:24:28 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: a cup of tea vs. a tea cup
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: a cup of tea vs. a tea cup
- Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 23:25:54 -0700
jatlh De'vID:
> How do I distinguish between saying a "tea cup" and a
> "cup of tea" (not quite the same thing)? <Dargh
> HIvje'> refers to the cup (KGT 96). But what if I want
> to refer to the tea? That is, I have a cup of tea,
> it is a *cup* of tea that I have and not, say, a
> bottle of tea.
>
> <Dargh'e' HIvje'>
I don't really think this works. If you said <Dargh'e' HIvje' vIghaj>, I
would probably interpret it as something like "As for the tea, I have its
cup." Weird.
> <HIvje'Daq Dargh>
This doesn't work as a noun phrase like this, but might work in a sentence.
<HIvje'Daq Dargh vIghaj> would mean "I have tea in a cup.". This may or may
not work, depending on your context.
> <Dargh wa' HIvje'> vs. <wa' Dargh HIvje'> ???
The second one here is obviously "one teacup". The first one is difficult to
figure out. I would probably read it as a "tea #1 cup", as opposed to a "tea
#3 cup".
What you can do is say <Dargh'e' ngaSbogh HIvje' vIghaj> - "I have tea which
is contained in a cup". You have the tea, and you are describing it by
saying that it is contained in a cup.
This particular use of <-'e'> is not something you will find in TKD, but it
does work. With a <-bogh> clause with both a subject and an object, you
can't necessarily tell which one you are talking about. Context will tell
you most of the time, but not always. Krankor came up with the idea of
putting <-'e'> on the "head noun" of the clause, and Marc Okrand has said he
likes the idea.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian