tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 12 12:22:35 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: eD ngerwIgholpu' vItamchoHlaw'ta'
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: eD ngerwIgholpu' vItamchoHlaw'ta'
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 09:35:48 EDT
On Oct 8, 4:50pm, [email protected] wrote:
...
> Another question: Concerning what Qanqor commented about the vaguene
> of functiolingon question words, i.e., tha'Iv and nuq follow
> somewhat different rules than other nouns. Well, which of these would
> seem more appropriate?:
>
> - ghorgh 'oHpu' may'
> - ghorgh qaSpu' may'
>
> Guido#1 ---
My personal vote is heavily toward the latter. It avoids the unnecessary
issue of just exactly how far you can extend the idea of using pronouns as
"to be" verbs. This is not a diatribe against "to be". It is just the simple
statement that in an instance like this where "to be" is easily replaced in
an excellently formed sentence, why further extend its use? Okrand shows no
examples with verbal suffixes other than taH, which was itself expanded in
ST6 to become a verb unto itself. Using 'oHpu' is a step toward sentences
like this statement of a newly reformed conscientious objector:
mang jIHqangqa'laHbejta'vIS DaH mang jIHqangHa'
Please, let us extinguish any reflex to explore such perversifications
of linguistic potential.
-- charghwI'