tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 16 23:37:49 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yIlaD
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: yIlaD
- Date: Tue, 17 May 94 11:33:20 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Nick NICHOLAS" at May 17, 94 6:29 pm
According to Nick NICHOLAS:
...
> =reH SuvtaH chaH wIja'chuqtaHchugh vaj wIch wIyInmoHtaH
...
> Will, did you mean "'e' wIja'chuq", or "DIja'chuq"?
> --
> Nick.
I struggled with this one for a bit. My first point of
confusion was over the use of {-chuq} with a verb that had a
prefix that implied an object. This is not normal, but I
decided that {ja'chuq} has become a separate verb from
{ja'+chuq} since it has its own separate entry. Once past that,
I recognized that it was a verb of speaking, so it did not need
{'e'}, though the object is still the previous sentence, so it
is singular. All that is to say that I did intentionally say
{reH SuvtaH chaH wIja'chuqtaHchugh vaj wIch wIyInmoHtaH}. It
would not have been incorrect to have included {'e'} before
{wIja'chuqtaHchugh}, though it is clearly not necessary.
I've tried to look at it in some way so that {DI-} would be
appropriate, but it always creates problems. If {SuvtaH} became
{SuvtaHbogh}, then I could see {DI-} being used, because then
it means, "If we continue to discuss those who are always
fighting..." Then again, as my departed step-father often said,
"If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his tail every time he
jumped."
This was supposed to be folk wisdom. The point is, {SuvtaH}
didn't have a {-bogh}, so the object of {wIja'chughtaHchugh} is
not the pronoun {chaH}, so it is not plural, and since
{ja'chugh} is a verb of speaking, we don't need {'e'}.
Did I miss anything?
charghwI'