tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 08 05:29:44 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: tugh muSuch jup chu'

>>HaStaDaq nargh ngoDmey ram Sovlu' 'e' luDajbogh
>>mu'mey'e'.

SuStel writes:
>Ick.  Can you do that?  The {'e'} construction on a verb with {-bogh}, I
>mean.

I wasn't too sure about it, but the thoughts were flowing fast and I
didn't take a lot of time to analyze the suspicious grammar.  charghwI'
also had trouble with this, but he explained the problem and I agree
with him.  Because {'e'} actually refers to a previous sentence, it is
not appropriate in a relative clause stuck in the middle of a sentence.

So I will rephrase my statement to make it a pair of sentences:
{ngoDmey ram Sovlu' 'e' luDajmeH HaStaDaq nargh mu'mey.}

I might also get rid of the third verb entirely:
{HaStaDaq nargh ngoDmey ram Sov luDajbogh mu'mey'e'.}
But this has entirely too many nouns between a pair of verbs, and it's
not immediately obvious which nouns go together and whether any are the
subject of the preceding verb.  It parses fine, but not trivially.

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

Back to archive top level