tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 06 09:49:22 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: (Fwd) Grammar question on promised action
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: (Fwd) Grammar question on promised action
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 12:49:14 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Garrett Michael Hayes" at Nov 3, 95 05:34:07 am
For all the spam from the weekend, it doesn't look like this
one has gotten an aswer yet. Into the breech...
According to Garrett Michael Hayes:
>
> Beginners Grammarian(s)....
>
> assuming that the context is clearly in the future, does the
> following adequately convey "Kahless will return to reclaim the
> Empire" ?
>
> wo' DoQqa' neH chegh qeylIS
>
> Garrett Michael Hayes [email protected]
Not really. Neither of the two main verbs here has a Type 9
suffix or otherwise has any dependency upon the other, so they
do not together form a single complete sentence. What you have
written sounds to me like:
"He merely claims again the empire Kahless returns."
See how the two main actions clash with no resolution? One of
the actions has to take the lead and become the main verb and
the other has to explain its relationship with the main verb.
I recommend that you think of it this way: The main action is
Kahless returning. Why is he returning? He is returning IN
ORDER THAT he reclaims the empire. The PURPOSE of his returning
is to reclaim the empire. You might call the CLAUSE referring
to the reclaiming the empire a PURPOSE CLAUSE.
Is that hint enough?
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |