tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 19 08:18:28 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Translated Phrase



~markvo':
> >I stretched things a little to use {'ej} as a conjunction
> >between two DEPENDENT clauses. I may be wrong on that one, but
> >leaving it out felt even worse. I'd be open to other opinions
> >on this. Holtej? ~mark? Krankor? trI'Qal? Guido#1? Nick? (I'm
> >sure I'll catch flaq for leaving somebody out...)
> 
> Works fine for me.  My understanding on this point is that "'ej" joins
> sentence, well, actually, clauses, and clauses are just finite verbs with
> some optional nouns attached.  If the clauses happen to be subordinate,
> hey, what else you gonna use to conjoin them?  "je"?  Nah.  In fact, I'd
> even say that *if* you an have more than one adjectival verb on a noun
> (e.g. big red book) and *if* you can conjoin them (both if's that are
> unsupported and I don't claim them, though I do sort of support the first
> but not necessarily the second), the conjunction would be "'ej".  OK,
> There's really no evidence for these, and perhaps no conjunction should be
> allowed, but I personally don't mind the "'ej" as you have it here.

I disagree on the adjectival verbs.

Personally, I don't think there would be *any* conjunction between 
adjectives.  I think the verbs would just be lsited after the noun, and 
that was that.  Why confuse the issue more?

Just my $0.02...


--tQ


-- 
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'!  toH, qatlh reH HaghtaH HoD Qanqor...?

--HoD trI'Qal		Captain T'rkal		---------------------
  tlhwD lIy So'		IKV Hidden Comet	|   [email protected]







Back to archive top level