tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 16 13:24:09 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Confusion and unconditional surrender (was: vocabulary..)
>Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 04:48:41 -0800
>From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
>On Wed, 15 Nov 1995, Alan Anderson wrote:
>> vanya writes:
>> >*slipper*meywIj mojpu' no'lI' SurghDu' ;P
>> >
>> I like it! Though I think it's not quite an insult. It's more of a taunt.
>> If you want to emphasize an "I did it" meaning, you can say something like
>> {waqHom moj no'lI' SurghDu' 'e' vIqaSmoHta'}. I've taken the liberty of
>> using the word {waqHom} here; I hope it fits what you want it to mean.
>Um, excpet for that pesky TKD 6.2.5, "In complex sentences of this type
>[sentence as object], the second verb never takes an aspect suffix
>(section 4.2.7)". Aspect needs to come from the verb in the sentence
>which is the object of /qaS/.
I call this "the obscure rule", because... well, because it is. It's a
tough rule to remember, and also to understand. I've often wished to
violate it (I mean, especially remembering that type-7 suffixes are aspect
and not tense, it often happens that I want to have aspect marking on the
matrix clause of a sentence-as-object construction). But hey, it's a rule.
~mark