tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 11 14:39:16 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Yet another newbie!
- From: Krenath <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Yet another newbie!
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:36:22 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :mime-version:subject:date:references; bh=MZb1LsiCNY1bZGDe5lvO2aHYDPcoPb7weaLYbzoDRwo=; b=r85DkCTzsYueXtVOGmUqlbdASugQy5nxJS+FIwPKB85e7DYgKscUwKOPUO1umMLOlU vokPxI0/u6qOmgWt4XuHRNsW0Tf6wS/Ps3reJ5zA7boEu5L3cE9AMs4L+9Mz5DljxMAo JC26Luvo2IPTues8q5/sacLydb/frucsHAEUg=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date :references; b=LixF8fVEt36B+HNLlye03FzX3fpXvMlaD63rvHybEq+iYv6b0T2vPmxf9z3H8ZxWHN Ops7o3HtDQB42dAHHT3r9oL0vNZBa0mjKNCIVPrPWnut9lXe/psbi9XVd9ZefICiCYKX +w7qgDjEKd5b1QgsVaTGJZwnYnf11GbUfItoU=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
Huh.
If I'm understanding it properly, 'oH and 'oHtaH may be analogous to
the verbs "ser" and "estar" in Spanish.
So:
'oH and ser talk about what something is when that aspect is somewhat
permanent.
'oHtaH and estar talk about what something is *currently* when that
aspect is expected to be able to change, such as a location
Sound about right?
On Nov 11, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]
> wrote:
> --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Steven Boozer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e'
>>>> The sword is in the ocean. KGT
>>
>> ter'eS:
>>> But not with negatives? ?{bIQ'a'Daq 'oHbe' 'etlh'e'}
>>
>> That's an interesting question. AFAIK we don't have
>> any examples of {PRONOUNtaHbe'} or {PRONOUNbe'taH} in the
>> corpus, whether referring to location or not.
>>
>
> I actually like plain {'oHbe'} by analogy with {'oH} used in a
> question (eg. {nuqDaq 'oH}). In the question, you don't know if
> something has continued existence somewhere, so you don't presume
> that, only ask if it exists. In the positive answer, you are
> stressing its presumed continued existence in a given place. In the
> negative, you are focusing on the fact that something is not
> somewhere; stressing its on-going not-being seems redundant.
>
> -- ter'eS
>
>
>