tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 25 14:48:03 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

instrumental case which isn't there

• From: Randall Holmes <[email protected]>
• Subject: instrumental case which isn't there
• Date: Fri, 25 Jun 93 14:44:13 -0600

A question (or proposal):

	Can the special sentence pronoun 'e' take noun suffixes?

	If it can, can the vexing problem of the instrumental be
solved as follows:

	verengan vIHoHpu' 'e'vaD tajvam ghaHpu'

	I killed the Ferengi with this knife,

	literally "I killed the Ferengi; for that, this knife was".

	This seems reasonably economical; the really superfluous
seeming element is the pronoun used for "to be" which is needed to
complete the second sentence; I felt the need to make it agree in
aspect with the verb in the main sentence, but this is optional.

				--"Randall Holmes" mughlaw'wI'

• Follow-Ups:
  • instrumental case which isn't there
    • From: (Mark E. Shoulson) <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Mandatory Self-introduction
• Next by Date: Re: Klingon on road signs!
• Prev by thread: Negation
• Next by thread: instrumental case which isn't there
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level