tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 06 08:06:27 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SkyBox
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: SkyBox
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 11:05:42 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 14:54:11 -0700 [email protected] wrote:
> I don't know if anyone has discussed these particulars . . .
>
> S25
>
> {ngoch luchermeH 'ej wo' San luwuqmeH . . .}
>
> Isn't there supposed to be a {-moH} on {cher}?
I don't think so. The definition in TKD sounds rather transitive
to me, and this is the only useage I've cited to date, and it is
clearly transitive. The definition says "establish", not "be
established", and "set up", not "be set up". Don't confuse it
with {chen}.
> {yejquv DevwI' moj ghawran 'e' wuqta' cho' 'oDwI' . . . }
>
> Oops. There is a {-ta'} on the second verb of an {'e'} construction . . .
> (Well, if Okrand really did write these, then I don't feel so bad now about
> all the times I have done that.)
Keen eye.
> S26
>
> {DuraS tuq tlhIngan yejquv patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH DuraS be'nI'pu' . . .
> }
>
> I know we've already mentioned the fact that {reH] comes *after* the {'e'},
> but there are a couple of other things. We now know that {Dub} can be used
> transitively (either that or the author forgot to use {-moH} again). And
> there's another one of those aspect suffixes on the second verb . . . !
Perhaps that rule is fading? Many of us would love to see it go.
> SuStel
> Stardate 96790.9
charghwI'