tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 19 08:18:28 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Translated Phrase
- From: HoD trI'Qal <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Translated Phrase
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 20:14:34 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Aug 10, 94 03:57:25 pm
~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]