tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 01 12:20:08 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sound
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: Sound
- Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 14:23:34 -0500
voqHa'wI' writes:
>> In a message dated 96-05-31 06:42:13 EDT, voqHa'wI' wrote:
>nuqjatlh? nuq 'oH <EDT> jay?
"Eastern Daylight Time".
>>>>Does anyone know the translation of 'sound (n)'?
>>>>Suggestion: QuymoHwI' (Quy=to hear)
>>>>(is moH allowed in a verb + wI' construction?)
Yes, if what you want to says is "one who causes [an action]", as in
{bIrmoHwI'} "thing which causes [something] to be cold".
>>> I think you are looking for <Quylu'wI'>, or "That which is heard".
>> Also, whenever we see a verb with {-wI'} on it, it is translated as "thing
>> which is," or "thing which does," etc. ...
>
>Which is -exactly- why I like my translation. Since {Qoylu'} means
>"it is heard", I thought that {Qoylu'wI'} would make a nice "thing which is
>heard".
{Qoylu'} means that the *object* is not heard.
>> This is a good example of the problem of trying to use {-lu'} and {-wI'}
>> together.
>
>Problem? I don't see one! [fishing for responses - this goes in the grammar
> files once I get around to it :] ]
Let's look a bit closer. The suffix {-lu'} means there is no definite
subject, and the suffix {-wI'} says the thing being referred to *is* the
subject of the verb. They aren't really compatible.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj