tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 09 04:20:40 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: several questions
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: several questions
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 07:21:51 -0500
[starting with QamtaHvIS Hegh QaQ law' tortaHvIS yIn QaQ puS]
According to Captain Krankor:
>But in any case, the construction seems sound, and rather akin to
>similar -meH constructions.
>
>QamtaHvIS yIn life while standing
>QammeH yIn life in order to stand
I have to object to this. {-vIS} marks a subordinate clause, and
applies to the main verb of the sentence, not to a noun. It is NOT
like {-meH}, which gets its own section (6.2.4) in TKD, where we are
told IT is able to describe either a noun or a verb.
In the {QamtaHvIS yIn qaq law'} half, I think {QamtaHvIS} must be
interpreted as describing the conditions during which {qaq} applies.
The original proposals were:
>QaQ QamtaHvIS Hegh. qab tortaHvIS yIn
>Death while (one is) standing is good.
>Life while (one is) kneeling is bad.
I don't see these as reasonable. Interposing a relative clause between
a verb and its subject completely confounds the grammar, in my opinion.
This looks to me like it wants to be "It is good while death is standing."
I'd have to say {Qamlu'taHvIS QaQ Hegh} "While standing, death is good."
I think {maQamtaHchugh wIHegh net laj} would better express the meaning.
>Do'Ha' yInpu'pa' Hegh.
>Death before one has completed living is unfortunate.
Similarly, {yInpu'pa' Do'Ha' Hegh}
"Before he has lived, death is unfortunate."
Or {yInchu'pu'be'chugh Do'Ha' HeghDaj}.
>yonmoH yInta'DI' Hegh.
>Death as soon as one has accomplished living is satisfying.
And {yInta'DI' yonmoH Hegh}
"As soon as he did live, death causes him to be satisfied."
I like {batlh yInta'mo' batlh Heghrup} better.
The bottom line is that I do NOT see a reason for type 9 verb suffixes
other than {-meH} to be permitted to modify a noun.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj