tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 10 14:42:42 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Good day to die.
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Good day to die.
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 17:42:15 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Oct 10, 94 5:14 pm
According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>
> >From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
> >Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 17:26:51 EDT
>
> >...Note that when
> >a verb has {-meH} on the end, it still needs an appropriate
> >prefix indicating the person and number of the subject.
>
> This is a sticky point, actually. I used to be completely convinced that
> what you say here is true... but Krankor disabused me of that notion.
> Apparently, "-meH" is the exception, and can be used impersonally.
> Consider the canon example from TKD: Dochvetlh DIlmeH Hugh 'ar DaneH?
> (translated: how much do you want for that?) There is no prefix on
> "DIlmeH", and third-person doesn't really work either. It appears that
> purpose-clauses *can* be used in an impersonal fashion, after all. I try
> to avoid it, but it does turn out mighty useful on occasion.
I had been going by the examples given in 6.2.4, where clearly
they are using prefixes (jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH) or are
third person (ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla' - note missing
space). Even if it is true that you may use or omit such
prefixes for {-meH}, I personally am attracted to include them
rather than omit them. It makes for so much more clarity.
As for the counterexample, I could see a translation meaning
"How much money do you want, in order that it buys that thing?"
Still, it would have been much nicer as either {Dochvetlh
jIDIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH?} or {Dochvetlh DIllu'meH Huch 'ar
DaneH?}
>
> ~mark
charghwI'