tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 21 16:45:03 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: leSpoHwIj yIghuH
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: leSpoHwIj yIghuH
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 19:44:31 -0500
In a message dated 95-12-21 10:26:33 EST, Alan Anderson writes:
>jIghIQmeH jItlheDrup. cha'leS jImej.
>jIDachtaHvIS jabbI'ID law'qu' vIHevqangbe'.
>qaStaHvIS Hut jaj HablI'vo' jIHev DaH 'e' jIqagh.
>taghDI' DIS chu' jabbI'IDmey vIHevqangqa'.
>qaSpu'DI' jav jaj "Disney" qo' wISuch qorDu'wI' jIH je.
>vISaHqa'DI' qaSpu'bogh wanI' vIDel.
>
>yupma' poH yItIv tlhIH. jIcheghDI' jIghItlhqa'.
The passage above raises a couple of questions about which I would like to
get answers.
1. {jIghIQmeH jItlheDrup} The question is regarding the second verb's
pronomial prefix {jI-}. Is this correct, indicating that each clause has No
Object, or should the second phrase (main clause) treat the first phrase as a
subordinate clause (in that a Verb Suffix Type 9 has been used)?
The same situation arises in the final line above as {jIcheghDI'
jIghItlhqa'}.
I can see why the author used the No-Object pronoun. Yet I would like
comments and clarification.
2. In line 3, according to some passages I have read in TKD, {jI-} is the
Pronoun of choice following the Noun Suffix Type 5 {-vo'}. But, I do not
agree with {'e' jIqagh}. Because {'e'} is the Object of {qagh} while
referring to the previous sentence/clause, I see a definite need here to say
{'e' vIqagh}.
peHruS