tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 20 07:54:33 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: This Stone Thread; SOLVED!!
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: This Stone Thread; SOLVED!!
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 10:53:07 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from davidbarron on Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:45:58 -0800)
>Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:45:58 -0800
>From: david barron <[email protected]>
>Did you gents not get my post where I found a solution with which
>I was perfectly satisfied?
>nagh lanbeHlu'bogh
>Here the stone is ready to be PLACED!!!
>It makes sence to me.
>I welcome your critique.
Hmm. I like it and I don't. On the one hand, it makes a certain amount of
sense. But on the other hand, -beH is generally a reference to the
*subject*. "HoHbeH", it is set to kill. "lI'beH" it is configured to
transmit. "pumbeH" it is set up to fall. But with the -lu' construction,
the subject is indefinite. Using -lu' does *NOT* change the object into
the subject. The rock is *still* the OBJECT of the verb, and as such may
not be subject to being described by the -beH suffix. Pretend the -lu'
suffix weren't there, and the subject were definite (or perhaps is stated
as "vay'"). The sentence still has the SAME grammar, but using -beH no
longer makes any sense.
~mark