tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 04 17:08:48 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lut tlhaQ: nuq qab law' Dochvam qab puS?
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: lut tlhaQ: nuq qab law' Dochvam qab puS?
- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 20:10:29 -0500
Alex "Lord Havelock" wrote:
>meghlIjDaq yIH Datu' nuq qab law' 'e' qab puS? [etc.]
I wrote:
>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.
~mark writes:
>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?
With the perspective gained from the passage of time, I now see that
my first reaction was entirely too positive. :-) I intentionally did
not claim it made any sort of *grammatical* sense, but perhaps the word
I should have used was "semantic" instead of "syntactic." I, too, don't
know what to call the part of the "sentence" the nouns take, but I was
misled by their appearing *before* the verb, and the {'e'} didn't look
out of place at first glance.
So I must retract my earlier enthusiasm. {'e'}, being restricted to
object only, does not fit as a noun in a {law'/puS} construction.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj