tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 31 15:59:20 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC (adverbials)

Shane MiQogh ([email protected])



In conclusion of all this, i do beleive you guys are saying the following:
   
  -No punctuation and adverb affects both verbs.
   
  -With commas, it offects the one it's on the same side of the comma with.
   
  -with (-bogh) it would affect the verb with (-bogh) on it.
   
  Is that essentually the idea?
Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]> wrote:
  --- Steven Boozer wrote:

> IOW *{Doqqu'bogh Doch loQ
> vIparHa'} is not possible 
> because {loQ} would come between the verb and its
> object.
> 

Actually, you could do it: {Doqqu'bogh Doch'e' loQ 
vIparHa'}. (by analogy with {HaqwI'e' DaH yIsam}).

> As it happens, {Doq} is a bad example to use as this
> ter'eS's example can 
> easily be rewritten:
> 
> loQ Doch Doqqu' vIparHa'
> I like the red thing a little bit.
> 
> which (to me at least) is quite clear. 

This is absolutely true, and is the main reason
why I would apply the adverbial to the {-bogh}'ed
verb in the other case: because a simple way of
saying this is so available, the more "convoluted"
way must be interpreted as saying something
different.

{loQ Doch Doqqu' vIparHa'} can only be "I like the
red thing a little".

{loQ Doqqu'bogh Doch vIparHa'} _could_ be read as
"I like the red thing a little", but why go to 
the trouble of this construction if that's all 
you intend to say, since the previous construction
does the job nicely? So if I did see this
construction, to me it could only mean that the
writer intends the adverb to affect the first,
{-bogh}'ed verb, and not the main verb.

-- ter'eS




			
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.





Back to archive top level