tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 17 10:21:46 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: 'e' as a pronoun.
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: 'e' as a pronoun.
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:21:28 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:18:44 -0800 "Mark E. Shoulson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 20:17:32 -0800
> >From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
> >
> >December 16, 1996 5:31 AM, jatlh Mago:
> >
> >> SuSDaq joq jIbDaj 'e'mo' vIleghbe'
> >>
> >> And now the question: Is 'e'mo' acceptable? I mean, can 'e', as a pronoum,
> >admit name
> >> suffixes? I think so, but I'm not sure...
Okay, nobody else is saying it so I will.
1. The ONLY valid use of the pronoun {'e'} is DIRECT OBJECT of
the second verb in a Sentence As Object construction.
2. A noun or pronoun with {-mo'} on it is not a direct object.
Got it?
Now, if you place {-mo'} on {'e'} it stops being a direct
object, and you can't use it any more.
Got it?
> >"Noun suffixes"? This has been debated before. There's no canon to support
> >it, and it's unlikely. {'e'} has a very special role in sentences, and
> >probably cannot be tinkered with.
Absolutely positively cannot be tinkered with. How strong are
my feelings on this? If Okrand said that *'e'mo'* was a valid
word, I'd argue with him.
> I agree. Hearing *any* suffix on "'e'" makes my flesh creep. If you want
> to use "*'e'mo'", what's wrong with putting the verb-suffix -mo' on the
> verb of the first sentence? That's what you mean, isn't it?
I've tried to figure out how in the world to start with the
original example, put {-mo'} on the first verb and make any
sense of it. Of course, I can't make any sense of the original
example...
Maybe it was supposed to be something like:
SuSDaq joqbogh jIbDaj vIleghbe'mo' jI'IQ.
That's as close as I can get to making sense of it, and it
does't put {-mo'} on the first verb OR use a Sentence As Object
construction.
> Oh, and regarding "waving in the wind," see Okrand's translation of that
> very sentence on p.28 of the dictionary. The "in" in English isn't the
> best preposition, as you'll see.
Oh. Right. Iknewthat.
SuSmo' joqbogh jIbDaj vIleghbe'mo' jI'IQ.
Yeah, that's the ticket...
> ~mark
charghwI'