tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 08 07:56:04 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tugh muSuch jup chu'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 05:33:30 -0700
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>>>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.
jIQochlaw'. I see your point (and I never thought of it that way before),
but I'm not sure I agree. In a certain sense, "-bogh" clauses are
sentences as well. I know I've used things like "nuchargh 'e' nabbogh
tlhInganpu'", and I saw them in Hamlet and never objected. I think it's
too useful and natural an interpretation. How else can you do it, in
general?
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMZC18cppGeTJXWZ9AQERMgL/TLSsOhJ23OAky6R3aS8BcHMVYCUIJmBY
TdJPZlIbSXPZWDusne5EA1lTXTzeJAT6XNLKXAAtBW/ZsFWWfub511biwmPZCdxQ
HQZaZSdfOT3mwIjd2ZYNrgamaWuWqKie
=sr0A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----