tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 05 15:47:51 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} Resultative Verb Compounds
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} Resultative Verb Compounds
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 15:47:51 -0400
>Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 23:09:47 -0500
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>>I have been wanting to say: I cut his head off. Then I heard on the tape my
>>answer.
>>
>>nachDaj vIpe' 'e' chev
>"I cut his head; [something] separates that" sounds pretty wierd.
>I don't have the tapes, so I'm working at a disadvantage here, but
>I think the sentence I've heard discussed was a command for a pet
>to "Bite his leg off!" Wasn't that {'uSDaj yIchop yIchev}?
>"Bite his leg! Separate it!" is quite reasonable. With that model,
>I would say {nachDaj vIpe' vIchev} "I cut his head; I separate it."
>Perhaps you have misinterpreted the tape, hearing {'e'} for {vI'}.
I know the tape; the tape uses clipped Klingon since it's a pet command,
and the command is "'uSDaj chop chev", which has been interpreted to be
short for "'uSDaj yIchop! yIchev!". Where you heard "*nachDaj vIpe' 'e'
chev" I have no idea. Can you find it?
"It separates that I cut his head" REALLY makes no sense to me. The
SENTENCE "nachDaj vIpe'" is the object of "chev". Therefore it's that
ACTION which is somehow "separated". Does that make any sense to you? It
doesn't work for me.
>>Therefore, it appears to me that this is the formula for all resultative verb
>>phrases (in Mandarin we call them resultative verb compounds).
It doesn't to me. You can't draw support from nonexistent canon; citations
should exist to be considered supportive.
>>Qap wanI'vam 'e' vItul
>vIHon.
vIHarbe'bej.
~mark