tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 09 19:53:36 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Verbs as Objects
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: Verbs as Objects
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 22:54:49 -0500
Alexander T Greene writes:
>[...]
>As to the translation I offered, bear in mind that the use of -meH as
>a suffix converts that entire verb structure into a purpose clause,
>which can be considered a separate sentence in itself. I would think
>that, in that case, the only modification necessary to this would be
>the replacement of <net> with <'e' >, thus;
>
> HeghmeH QaQ jaj'e'
Forgive me if I'm assuming something that's false, but I must speak.
This phrase appears grammatical, but I'm not sure that's intentional.
>From the description of your "modification," I think you meant to put
the word {'e'} at the end, and not the suffix {-'e'}. They're not
the same thing. If I'm right (ignore me if I'm not), you wanted to
say {HeghmeH QaQ jaj 'e'}. This is NOT grammatical.
A purpose clause created with {-meH} can NOT "be considered a separate
sentence in itself." It can NOT be referred to with {net} or {'e'}.
More importantly, {net} and {'e'} can not be subjects. They always
act as objects, and appear before the verb.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj