tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 01 08:32:06 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: jI`eqlaw`

• From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: jI`eqlaw`
• Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:33:53 -0500 (EST)
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On Fri, 1 Mar 1996, David Barron wrote:

> > jaj Hoch, puqloDwI' 'o' vIghIHHa'moH; vISay'moHtaHvIS, mu'vetlh vIlo' 
> > vIQIjmeH.  Dajlaw', mu' nIb wIlo'.  /Say'moH/ /lamHa'moH/ je DIlo'be'. 
>   ^^^^^^^^ 
>   Now wait. According to TKD 6.4.2 shouldn't the purpose clause 
>   PRECEDE the verb whose purpose it's describing?? I.e., shouldnt 
>   the -meH phrase precede {vISay'moHtaHvIS}? 

You are correct, and then you are wrong.  {{:)  It should have preceded 
the verb, but the structure it should have preceded is /mu'vetlh vIlo'/.  
It's TKD 6.2.4; there's no 6.4.2.

HIvqa' veqlargh!

> > --Holtej 

--Holtej

• References:
  • Re: jI`eqlaw`
    • From: David Barron <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: jI`eqlaw`
• Next by Date: time
• Prev by thread: Re: jI`eqlaw`
• Next by thread: time
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level