tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 06 18:39:09 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jI'eqlaw'
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: jI'eqlaw'
- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 21:40:51 -0500
charghwI' writes:
>>bItlhe'Ha''a' bIlegh 'e' waQmo' DI?
>
>yajlu'meH <bIlegh 'e' waQmo' DI, bItlhe'Ha''a'?> ngeD law' <bItlhe'Ha''a'
>bIlegh 'e' waQmo' DI?> ngeD puS. This is not a stated rule, but a somewhat
>indirect one. We know that {-mo'} as a noun suffix makes the attached noun
>necessarily come before the main clause and then we are told that {-mo'} as
>a verb suffix acts just like the noun suffix. He does not explicitly say
>that the verb clause needs to come before the main clause, but in practice
>it is a LOT easier to understand that way.
After having reread my sentences, I tend to agree. They do seem a bit
harder to follow the way I wrote them.
be'nalwI' DujHom rurlaw' DujHomlIj. navmey law' ngaS DujHomDaj.
puq Qujmey je ngaS. reH raQpo' quS So' DI.
DujHomDajDaq jIlIgh vIneHchugh ghIHHa'moHtaHvIS ghaH jIloSnIS.
-- ghunchu'wI' (qep'a'Daq maqIHchuqjaj! tugh mupchuqjaj QuchDu'maj!)