tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 06 22:03:02 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: qajatlh
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: KLBC: qajatlh
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 10:00:56 -0400
- In-Reply-To: "d'Armond Speers"'s message of Wed, 06 Apr 1994 00:52:14 -0400 (EDT) <[email protected]>
>From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed, 06 Apr 1994 00:52:14 -0400 (EDT)
>trI'Qalvo':
>> to mark with a type 9 suffix. You can't have two verbs just following one
>> another as you have originally, unless the second one (the one on the right)
>Before I make my comments, I'll say this clearly. I agree completely
>with HoD trI'Qal's analysis and interpretation here. (Not that I ever
>have, to my memory, actually *disagreed* with trI'Qal!).
>My question is about the assertion, "you can't have two verbs just
>following one another...unless the second one is <neH>, <jatlh>, or
><ja'>. But, what about those as mentioned in HolQeD 3:1 in Krankor's
>article, double imperatives, and the "bite his leg off!" example? I
>just sent off a bunch of insults to Lawrence (hehe, I mean, in the
>context of the contest!), two of which combined sentences in this way.
>The only way the combination made sense was *without* the <'e'>
>pronoun.
>Just curious.
Depends on how you look at it; I don't feel that "targhlIj yI?nagh yIruch"
contradict's trI'Qal's statement (though it, the statement, may indeed be a
little too sweeping). I don't really view the imperatives there as
"combining" at all; they're simply two independent sentences which we tend
to combine in meaning when translating to English, since their relationship
in the statement is so close. Just a matter of perspective.
>--Holtej
~mark