tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 10 07:15:26 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: pronouns and <-bogh>
>Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 09:50:06 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: "Mark J. Reed" <[email protected]>
>ghItlh Joseph W. Casey:
>\ The way I understood it was "I continue (or as close as I could come to
>\ always) to return, I don't remember chegh being a noun but as a verb.
>That's my point. For "chegh jIHtaH" to make sense, "chegh" would have to
>be a noun. "<X> jIH", with or without the -taH, means "I am <X>". It doesn't
>make sense, therefore, for <X> to be a verb. If you want "I <X>", where <X>
>is a verb, then the form is "jI<X>", thus, "jIchegh" is "I return", and
>"jIcheghtaH" is "I continuously return" or "I am returning". Sticking the
>"reH" on the front conveys the sense of "always" more exactly.
A minor point on the distinctions drawn by "reH" and "-taH". "-taH" is an
imperfective marker; it indicates that the activity is ongoing. "reH" is
an adverb of time, indicating when the action takes place. To me,
therefore, "reH jIchegh" means "I always return", while "reH jIcheghtaH"
means "I am always returning." That is, with the "-taH", the action is
viewed as continuous, always happening, as though you never actually get to
where you were returning to (if you mean to say "I am returning" and
there's a destination in mind, "jIcheghlI'" would word better). Without
the "-taH" , it needn't be continuous returning (a pretty unnatural
concept), but repeated returning. It always happens that I return, not
that at all points in time I'm engaged in the act of returning. Sometimes
I actually get back and leave again, only to return once more. Get it?
~mark