tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 29 15:29:51 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 08:29:09 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Holtej:
>It's ambiguous because it's in the object position; which of these two do
>you prefer:
>Dochvetlh DIlmeH yapbe' HuchwIj
>yapbe' Dochvetlh DIlmeH HuchwIj
cha'DIch chovnatlh vImaStaH.
I still prefer the second.
>Both are grammatical, but I find the first one more natural to say and
>understand. You seem to be implying that the only correct view is the
><DIlmeH Huch> one, and I disagree. Is the disagreement over why, if the
><DIlmeH> reading is preferable to the <DIlmeH Huch> one, this isn't
>{<Dochvetlh vIDIlmeH> Huch 'ar DaneH} (with an appropriate prefix)?
qar.
Yes, that's right.
>If {Huch} is the subject of {DIlmeH} in the <DIlmeH Huch> case, then it can
>be
>the subject (as an elided pronoun) in the <DIlmeH> one too. Yes?
Hrm. That brings up an interesting question: Does money pay for something,
or does a person pay for something? Or both? I was basing what I said on the
postulation that a person (subject) pays for something (object), in which
case {Dochvetlh DIlmeH yapbe' HuchwIj} still lacks {vI-}.
But if your interpretation of the subject of {DIl} is correct, then you're
right, {Huch} could be the head of a normal verb-type purpose clause here.
Perhaps that's more the issue here: can {Huch} be the subject of {DIl}?
Voragh, are there any other instances of {DIl} in canon?
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
Searching for that dream home? Try http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au for
all your property needs.