tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 20 19:47:41 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Interesting construction
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Interesting construction
- Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 22:46:23 -0500
>Hmm. Yes, this is close, and yes, it's not the same. Also consider what
>would happen if the information were the subject instead of the object of
>the sentence (teH De''e' vIlaD 'e' vIqawbogh). Hrm, granted that's pretty
>icky too. Also, evenif your argument doesn't work in that case (and it
>might), that doesn't mean it's an invalid argument. Yes, it needs
>considering.
Maybe not considering. I just meant it was intriguing to speculate on and
that's all. Oh, and BTW, the reason that {teH De''e' vIlaD 'e' vIqawbogh}
wouldn't work is that {'e'} as a head noun could only be the object of the
{-bogh}ed verb. That is, if this were a seriously considerable type of
construction, which I never said it was.
Guido