tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 31 15:27:25 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[none]
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: [none]
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 15:27:25 -0400
>([email protected])
Subject: Re: }} yoD Hov'a'
>Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 10:09:14 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Elizabeth C. Hoyt" <[email protected]>
>ghItlh ~mark:
>> >Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 21:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
>> >From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
>>
>> >Fri, 28 Jul 1995, ghItlh tlheghmeQ:
>>
>> >> yoD Hov'a' vIje'ta' 'e' tuj muDmo'.
>>
>> there's also a problem with the second clause. If the meaning is "Because
>> the air's (so) hot", it would have to be "tujmo' muD". I suppose you could
>> also say "muD tujmo'"/because of the hot air, but I like the first way
>> better.
>I think I got confused here because I was thinking of {tuj muD} as a
>unit. I see now, it's "because of the heat", not "because of the air".
Sort of. "tujmo' muD" means "because the air is hot." The "because"
attaches to entire clause, though it appears only on the verb. If it's
because of the hot air, think of "hot air" as one unit. "hot air" is "muD
tuj", so "because of the (hot-air)" is "(hot-air)mo'" or "muD tujmo'".
Note that it's purely a coincidence that "-mo'" is both a noun-suffix and a
verb-suffix with the same meaning (or that the verb-suffix and noun-suffix
for "because" happen to have identical forms). Well, maybe it isn't a
coincidence, but you should treat it as such. Don't think of "-mo'" as a
sort of typeless suffix for "because"; treat it as two separate suffixes,,
and it has to obey the laws of each, depending on how it's used.
Say, this could lead to some interesting zeugma, I bet, with words that are
nouns and verbs and don't mean the same thing (like Hurgh).
~mark