tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 18 12:57:44 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: jIghItlhqa'laH'a'

jIHvaD ghItlh ~mark:

>bIlughlaw','ach chaq qayajHa'. "-meH" sentences are like adverbs in that
>they come at the beginnings of sentences (they may also precede nouns). I
>would think that you can put another adverb (like tugh) after such a -meH
>sentence (or possibly before, though then it would look like the adverb was 
>part of the -meH clause).

muSIvmoHbogh Doch Dayajchu'

>Hrm. Actually, it looks as if the above paragraph is wrong (I like to leave
>such things in my posts [and even finish them if I realize they're wrong in
>the middle of writing], so people can see the thought-process). I checked
>TKD again, and it says that "-meH" clauses precede "the noun or verb" they
>modify. That would imply that it must come directly before the verb.

vISovbe'bej
wot DIp joq choHbogh nung "-meH" mu'tlhegh ja' TKD
'ach nungchu' "-meH" ja'be'
jojDaq "adverb" lanlu' 'e' chaw'be'lu' ja'chu'be'

That's exactly the problem. The TKD says that it precedes that which it
modifies, but it doesn't say that the -meH clause has to be placed 
-directly- before it. The question is if the -meH clause may be 
seen as a kind of sentence on its own (like those with 'e' or net). 
The same problem could occur in expressions using -bogh. 
In the "famous running man example" an adverb can be found after 
the -DI' clause, but of course we don't know if all subordinate 
clauses are treated the same in this respect. 
I guess they are not. :(
But it would make the sentences much more understandable.

jIlujqa'
tlhIngan Hol neH vIjatlh vIneHchu'qu' jay'
'ach jIjeghQo'
reH vInIDqa'taH

SanQIb      

-qaStaHvIS jajvam Huj maqIH jIH Hegh je-
-vIlIjbe'bej qaStaHvIS yInwIj poH-

Back to archive top level