tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 04 13:55:29 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lut tlhaQ: nuq qab law' Dochvam qab puS?
>Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 10:27:49 -0800
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>Alex "Lord Havelock" writes:
>>meghlIjDaq yIH Datu' nuq qab law' 'e' qab puS?
>>meghlIjDaq yIH bID Datu' 'e' qab law' Dochvetlh qab puS.
>This is a *very* interesting twist on the {law'/puS} construction.
>I don't see anything drastically wrong with it; it certainly makes
>syntactic sense to me.
Syntactic sense? Not to me... You have "'e'" being used as the "subject"
of one of the limbs of law'/puS. "'e'" can only be an *object*. I don't
know exactly what function the nouns serve in law'/puS, but it ain't
object. What's the object of "qab" anyway?
~mark