tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 12 20:58:41 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
"to be"
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: "to be"
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 23:59:22 -0500
maSqa' writes:
>Cool, do you have an example of its use in canonical sources?
The best I can do right now is point to Skybox trading card S15,
which refers to {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom}, or
"most of the 23rd century".
>I thought adding *Maine*Daq to the front was like adding DaHjaj. If I
>were to say DaHjaj SuvwI' bIr chaH SuvwI' Hoch'e' (Today all warriors
>are cold warriors) I don't believe you could seperate that into two
>sentances:" *all warriors are today", and "all warriors are cold
>warriors". Isn't the same thing going on with *Maine*Daq? Perhaps I
>have missed something...
As I interpret TKD 6.3, a pronoun can be used to mean "to be" in two
different ways. One way is to show some sort of equivalence: "I am a
worrywort." The other way is to indicate location: "I am in my house."
I don't think I've seen an example of both usages simultaneously. A
locative such as *Maine*Daq usually describes where the action of the
sentence takes place; I don't see much action in {rejmorgh jIH}, and I
am not comfortable with putting {juHwIjDaq} in front of it.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj