tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 29 16:12:23 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

d'Armond Speers, Ph.D. ([email protected])

• From: "d'Armond Speers, Ph.D." <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
• Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:11:14 -0600
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

QeS lagh wrote:

>> ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla'  -- No prefix on
>> /ja'chuq/, but then, the subject of the phrase is likely
>> /jaghla'/, or a third person.
>
> The translation in TKD is "The enemy commander wishes a
> truce (in
> order) to
> confer". This example is ambiguous also; it could parse
> as either of the following:
>
> <ja'chuqmeH> rojHom neH jaghla'
> <ja'chuqmeH rojHom> neH jaghla'

TKD makes it clear that it's the latter, at the top of page 65:

"The phrase {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} 'a truce (in order) to confer' is the object
of the verb {neH} 'he/she wants it'; the subject is {jaghla'}.  The object
is a noun {rojHom} 'truce' preceded by the purpose clause {ja'chuqmeH} 'for
the purpose of conferring' or 'in order to confer.'"

The subject of {ja'chuqmeH} is still not explicit, whether it's an elided
{chaH} or just unstated (as in the {ghojmeH taj} examples).

--Holtej

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
    • From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
    • From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
• Next by Date: Re: A fun conjectural question
• 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