tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 22 22:06:43 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: agentive -wI'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: agentive -wI'
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:06:37 EST
Voragh wrote:
>Dajatlhbogh vIyajlaHbe'
>I find no match for what you just said. (KCD .wav file)
ro'Han wrote:
>Not having KCD, this is the first time I have seen this sentence, and I find
>it unusual. Literally translated, I get "I cannot understand (implicit: "the
>sentence") which you say". In my mind, it seems that <<Dajatlhbogh>> has
>been (semi-) nominalised with no supporting suffix.
As a side-question, why is the object only implicit? I've seen this sentence
used before as an example of something weird or ambiguous, but I've never
understood why. Isn't this sentence just a shorter way of saying {'oH
Dajatlhbogh SoH vIyajlaHbe'}? Is there something wrong with that?
-Sengval