tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 12 13:16:52 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhab jaj
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 01:28:07 -0700
>From: "A.Appleyard" <[email protected]>
> ghItlhpu' Robert Darke <[email protected]>:-
><Independence Day> vIleghnIS'a'? QaQ'a' 'oH? DaHjaj <UK>Daq So'Ha'pu' 'oH.
> QaQ 'oH. vIleghpu'.
> jabbI'IdghomDaq lut wanI'mey wIja'chuqbogh 'ej vaj lut De' wI'angbogh,
> (lut
There's been some discussion on this occasionally: can you say "wanI'
wIja'chuq" (incidentally, if you can, your sentence would have to be
"wanI'mey DIja'chugh," since wanI'mey is plural). According to TKD, when
you have -chuq, you have to use no-object prefixes. But "discuss" looks so
temptingly transitive we'd like to think Okrand overlooked this when he
made the rule. Or maybe "ja'chuq" isn't truly ja' + -chuq anymore, but has
become lexicalized into its own verb and thus can take object prefixes. Is
a puzzlement. I suppose you can say "wanI'mey DIqelbogh."
Although -bogh clauses are conjoined with "'ej" (per TKW), you are not here
conjoining -bogh clauses; you're conjoining noun phrases (which happen to
be constructed with -bogh). The difference is that the TKW example had two
"-bogh" clauses modifying the same noun, so it was like a compound sentence
was relativized with -bogh. Here, you have two unrelated -bogh clauses,
different head-nouns (the fact that both are wI- isn't important, since the
head-noun isn't affected), and you're conjoining the nouns they refer to.
So I'd expect "lut wanI'mey DIqelbogh, lut De' wI'angbogh je."
>legh 'e' Hech nuvpu''e')vaD lut bel QIH 'oH
I'm sorry, I can't follow this. I think I missed something.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMg+Q/8ppGeTJXWZ9AQHRBgL+Jxbvwcjy/h+5PQmAsdOVVREwWI391xSZ
RxT4Dd5L50j4V8pZbSGzEcKnZv1bS9S2iLb3tFGg9zUppfxxWH0uWCisG++e9vBK
BsAnpxud5pou2c1sB7pZt5LYbokbvmOv
=yuGT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----