tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 29 05:18:36 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
• Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:17:51 EDT

In a message dated 2004-07-28 11:08:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> >Now I would say {Dochvetlh vIDIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH}, adding {vI-} "I" as 
> the
> >explicit subject of {DIlmeH}.  Is context so strong in the paying scenario
> >that this sort of explicitness is unnecessary?
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with the phrase.  In this case, the purpose 
> clause appears to be modifying the noun {Huch}.
> 
> "How much money do you want (the purpose of the money is to pay for that 
> thing)?"
> 
> The general pattern seems to be that when a purpose clause modifies a noun, 
> the verb with the {-meH} suffix has a null prefix and doesn't use 
> {-lu'}.    Other examples: {ghojmeH taj} and {ja'chuqmeH rojHom}.
> 
> {Dochvetlh vIDIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH} would usually change the purpose clause 
> to modify the verb, in this case {neH}.  However, that doesn't work as a 
> translation for "How much do you want for that?" because the purpose of the 
> seller wanting money isn't so that you can pay for the book (as you allude 
> to).
> 
> 
> 
> Dar'Qang
> 
chochuHmo' DaH vIyajlaw'.  

lay'tel SIvten

• Prev by Date: RE: Do you want to go to the qep'a'?
• Next by Date: Re: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
• Previous by thread: RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
• Next by thread: RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level