tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 28 09:55:41 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: targh lut
>Date: Sun, 27 Nov 1994 23:28:36 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>According to Terry Donnelly:
>> // /SuvwI' quv,/ jatlhqa' targhHom, /jIbIrqu'. weplIjDaq jIlIgh
>> 'e' yIchaw'./ //
>>
>> //Dachaw'ta''a'?// vItlhobta'.
>There is a specific rule against using the perfective both for
>the verb of speaking and the verb in the sentence which is
>spoken. ~mark recently caught me on that one. Meanwhile, you
>didn't want it for {tlhob} anyway. I also doubt you want it in
>the quote, either, especially in the "accomplished" form. This
>sentence works fine without it. Again, what you want is tense,
>not aspect, and that is gotten through context, not suffix.
Actually, no, it's the other way 'round. The rule is that when you use
"'e'" (i.e. when the main verb *isn't* a speaking verb), the main verb
can't take a perfective. Reread TKD 6.2.5. Note that we have a canon
example of "-pu'" on a main verb with a verb of speaking in that very
section.
Neither of you should feel bad about missing this. It's only been the last
few weeks that I can see it at all, and I'm sure I still make the same
mistake. I only realzied it when I kept correcting Nick's Hamlet, asking
for "-pu'"s in assorted places, and he kept saying he couldn't because of
the rule. And even then it took me quite a while before I'd internalized
it enough to catch you that time, charghwI'.
>> Terry Donnelly
>charghwI'
~mark