tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 23 20:36:00 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:yInQeD
Tue, 23 May 1995, ghItlh qo'ran:
> chaq <<Qagh'a'>> 'oHnIS mu'vam'e'. I meant for this to mean "big
> mistake," but I used the wrong suffix. The full correction would
> be <<Qagh'a'vammo' tlhinganpu' qempa' chaH targhew'a'mey'e'
> wIHarlaHbe'bej.>>
{-'e'} Dachelpu' 'ach {'e'} Dateqpu'. ratlhnIS {'e'}.
vaj: Qagh'a'vammo' tlhInganpu' qempa' chaH targhew'a'mey'e' 'e'
wIHarlaHbe'bej.
> >Did you mean to attach {-'e'} to the head noun of the relative
> >clause?
>
> ghobe'. Maybe I'm not getting the sentence-as-object
> construction correct. I meant to have 'e' refer to everything in
> the sentence that preceded it. Is this not right?
No, {'e'} is only used when there is a complete sentence preceeding the
{'e'}. {The Phage pongbogh Voyager lutHom} (the episode of Voyager which
names the Phage) is not a complete sentence, it is a relative clause.
Relative clauses are not complete sentences by themselves, they can
function as the subject or object of the main verb as if they were a noun.
(Sec. 6.2.3.)
You can use {-'e'} to mark the head noun of the relative clause to
indicate whether {the Phage} or {Voyager lutHom} is the direct object of
the main verb of the sentence. E.g.
[The Phage] pongbogh [Voyager] lutHom'e' wInuDnIS.
(We need to examine the episode of Voyager which names the Phage.)
[The Phage]'e' pongbogh [Voyager] lutHom wInuDnIS.
(We need to examine the Phage which an episode of Voyager names.)
An the other hand, you may have intended to say:
[The Phage] ponglu'bogh [Voyager] lutHom wInuDnIS.
(We need to examine the episode of Voyager which is named The Phage.)
You don't need to mark the head noun of this relative clause because
{[The Phage ponglu'bogh [Voyager] lutHom} is essentially a noun-noun-noun
possessive construction and you can't put {-'e'} before the last noun in
a construction of this type. (Sec. 3.4.) Anyways, {lutHom} is
semantically functioning as the direct object of the main verb
automatically so it doesn't need to be marked.
> <<SaD>>vaD <<vatlh>> yItam. 'ach <<loghDaq lulengpa' 'oH 'oghta'
> tera'nganpu'>> vIjatlhnISpu'. mu'tlheghvam lugh law' wa'DIch
> lugh puS.
maj.
> Qagh 'oH <<janHomqu'>>'e'. *very small devices* vIjatlhnIS. In
> other words, I intended to say that the Federation is good at
> nanotechnology. lughbe' <<-qu'>> 'ach lughlaw'be' <<-'a'>>.
> Would <<janHom'a'>> mean "very small device"?
No, since {-Hom} and {-'a'} are both Type 1 suffixes, you can't use them
simultaneously.
You could say {machqu'bogh jan} (a device which is very small).
> qo'ran
yoDtargh