tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 14 11:13:07 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-Daq} and "to be" (was Re: Klingon on IRC)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: {-Daq} and "to be" (was Re: Klingon on IRC)
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 14:12:15 -0500
In a message dated 95-12-14 03:25:16 EST, HomDoq writes:
> I understand the intended meaning perfectly, but I'm not convinced that
>> the Klingon is correct. Replace {SuvwI' bIr chaH} with {qagh Sop} to get
>> {*Maine*Daq qagh Sop SuvwI' Hoch} "All warriors eat worms in Maine." This
>> is NOT the same idea as "In Maine, all warriors eat worms." I'm pretty
>> sure that "In Maine, something happens" cannot be translated simply as
>> {*Maine*Daq qaS vay'}. Maybe "something which is in Maine happens."
>> How about {SuvwI' bIr chaH *Maine*Daq chaHbogh SuvwI' Hoch'e'}?
>>
>I disagree... to me, if "Sentence" can stand alone,
>
>Location-Daq Sentence
>
>means exactly "Sentence in/at Location", i.e.
>{*Maine*Daq qagh Sop SuwI' Hoch} means
>"In Maine,(!) all warriors eat worms." If you
>want to say "While a warrior is in Maine, he
>will eat worms." you should, indeed, say so:
>{*Maine*Daq ghaHtahvIS SuvwI''e' qagh Sop}
>(I hope I didn't fumble...)
>
> HomDoq
>
>--
>> {*Maine*Daq qaS vay'}. is my problem.
While I see the Subject always being AT the location indicated by the Type 5
{-Daq}, and much discussion has been posted coming to the conclusion that we
can add the Type 5 {-'e'} to the Object to indicate its being AT the
location, I must disagree with using {vay'} as the Subject of {qaS}. I
prefer {wanI'}.
This gives: *Maine*Daq qaS wanI'
The sentence indicates that the Subject {wanI'} occurs in Maine. {*Maine*Daq
yaS'e' legh puq} is the way I say "The child sees the officer [who is] in
Maine."
This also means we do not have to convolute the sentence into {*Maine*Daq
ghaHtaHbogh yaS legh puq}.
peHruS