tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 22 16:08:32 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: wot tiqqu'qu'
- From: [email protected] (The Songbringer -- Marnen to the common folk)
- Subject: Re: wot tiqqu'qu'
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 19:05:43 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Will Martin" at Nov 22, 93 4:15 pm
Doch tlha' jatlhta' charghwi':
:
:
: On Nov 22, 2:39pm, The Songbringer -- Marnen to the common fol k wrote:
: > Subject: wot tiqqu'qu'
: >
: > For those who love long words, here's a verb followed by 13 suffixes.
: > Translation is left as an excercise.
: >
: > DalobHa'Qo'chuqqa'moHlaHbe'qu'law'taHneS'a'?
:
: Beautiful word, and I REALLY hate to rain on anybody's parade, but
: shouldn't that be:
:
: bIlobHa'Qo'chuqqa'moHlaHbe'qu'law'taHneS'a'?
No, I don't think it should. The meaning I had in mind was something like "Your
honor, are you apparently NOT able to cause them to again refuse to disobey
each other?" This would give a 2nd person singular subject and a 3rd person
plural object, clearly a candidate for >Da-<. I know Okrand says that verbs
with >-chuq< take "no object" prefixes, but because of >-moH< I thought that
that would not be appropriate in this case -- remember, it's "*cause* them to
refuse to disobey each other". I don't know if I'm right on this, but that's
the way it seemed to me.....any thoughts?
:
: -- chargwI'
:
:
Qapla' Qichqemwi'vo'.
--
===============================================================================
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | Marnen E.
| |/ \ \ / \ \ / \ \ | |/ \_\ | |/ \ \ / \_\ | |/ \ \ | Laibow-Koser
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |/ | | | | | laibow@brick.
|_| |_| |_| \_\|_| |_| |_| |_| \_\_/ |_| |_| | purchase.edu
| SUNY Purchase
===============================================================================