tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 16 05:15:42 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} charghwI' writes his first poem
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} charghwI' writes his first poem
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 9:15:42 METDST
ghItlh yoDtargh:
>
jIghItlh:
> > > the way I think it SHOULD work would be
> > > no'wI' DaHoHta'bogh qa'pu'
> > > but that is obviously not an allowed phrase
>
> Why is it not allowed? I think it should be {no'wI' DaHoHta'bogh qa'pu'}
> and canon supports this type of construction.
>
the canon you cite is not in my possession :(
from TKD I gathered that V-bogh always creates a
clause which must function as a subject or object
in a sentence - but if it works as "adjective" or
"attribute", I'm fine... so would
HoHbogh Ha'DIbaH'e' qampu'
be acceptable for "the feet of the animal which killed him"
(if "him" has been specified in previous sentences) as opposed to
HoHbogh Ha'DIbaH qampu'
"the animal's feet which killed him"? i.e. in the first
example the killer is the Ha'DIbaH whereas in the second
it is the qampu'?
MArc 'Dochlangan'
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------