tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 12 01:59:15 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
lol - be in an attitude
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: lol - be in an attitude
- Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:58:29 EDT
In a message dated 2004-06-11 7:24:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
>ghItlhpu' lay'tel SIvten:
[here is the entire line from HQ:]
>>DuHIvmeH SuvwI' lol ghaH
>>the warrior is in a stance to attack you [HQ v11n2p8]
>>If {ghaH} referred to {SuvwI'}, it would be reflexive, and thus expressed
>>in a totally different way: {lol'egh SuvwI'}. qar'a'? So what would
>>{ghaH} refer back to? Some word in a previous sentence.
>No, it looks like {lol} doesn't normally take an object, so {lol'egh} is
>senseless. {lol} doesn't mean "cause to be in an attitude", it means "be in
>an attitude".
[snipped]
>But I think what you're doing here is confusing the position of {SuvwI'}.
>You're analysing this as though {SuvwI'} were part of the main clause:
>{DuHIvmeH <SuvwI' lol ghaH>}.
bIlughchu'. {DuHIvmeH} vIleghbe'chu'. vaj mumISqu' {SuvwI' lol ghaH}.
>The sentence looks like it's actually read as
>{DuHIvmeH SuvwI' <lol ghaH>}; {SuvwI'} is part of the purpose clause, not
>the main one. Remember that {-meH} clauses can include nouns, even when
>modifying nouns: {maghwI'pu' HoHmeH taj} "a knife for killing traitors".
>(BTW: I don't see a problem with adding a subject, too: {maghwI'pu' vIHoHmeH
>taj} "a knife for me to kill traitors with". I'm not sure of the stance of
>the rest of the list on this, but I don't know any reason why not.)
DIp 'oHbogh *subject* ghajlaHlaw' {-meH} ghajbogh mu'tlheghHom 'e'
vISovbe'bej.
DaH chochuHmo' vIyajlaw'.
>Savan.
>QeS lagh
lay'tel SIvten
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}
![[Hol taghwI']](/pics/level1_big.png "[Hol taghwI']"){kind=small}