tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 12 09:50:24 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon on Internet Relay Chat
On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Alan Anderson wrote:
> maSqa' writes:
> >*Maine*Daq SuvwI' bIr chaH Hoch SuvwI''e'
> >(does that use {Hoch} correctly?)
ghunchu'wI'vo':
> I don't think so. {Hoch SuvwI'} would mean "everyone's warrior",
> and I think you wanted to say "all warriors". The standard use
> of {Hoch} here is {SuvwI' Hoch}, "all of the warriors". I'm not
> quite sure this "partive" construction follows the noun-noun rule
> in TKD, but it's canon.
If you take noun-noun (N1-N2) as "N2 _of the_ N1", then it works. "All
_of the_ warrior(s)". It may also be seen as comparable to the question
/X 'ar/. But this pattern cannot be extended to the partitive
construction in the general sense. /SuvwI' wej/ can only mean "guard #
three". Unless, of course, we find out about some new grammar rule.
> One other thing about your sentence bothers me. You're using
> {chaH} in its verb form in both senses of "to be" simultaneously.
> {*Maine*Daq chaH SuvwI''e} and {SuvwI' bIr chaH SuvwI''e'} are
> both valid sentences (though the second one is rather convoluted),
> but I'm not sure the combination is reasonable.
I don't follow you here. His intended meaning was, if I'm reading it
right, "In Main, all warriors are cold warriors." I don't think he means
that all warriors are in Maine. Of the warriors who happen to be in
Maine, all of these warriors are cold. This works fine for me.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
--Holtej