tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 09 14:22:38 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tugh muSuch jup chu'y
According to Alan Anderson:
>
...
> So I will rephrase my statement to make it a pair of sentences:
> {ngoDmey ram Sovlu' 'e' luDajmeH HaStaDaq nargh mu'mey.}
jIparHa'qu'. vIyajlaHchu'.
> I might also get rid of the third verb entirely:
> {HaStaDaq nargh ngoDmey ram Sov luDajbogh mu'mey'e'.}
jIpar. mISmoHlu'. Since both {ram} and {Sov} can be either
nouns or verbs when they have no affixes, it gets gnarly. I can
read it and figure out "Words which inconclusively test
knowledge of unimportant facts appear on the screen," but if I
heard it, I would not be able to untangle it in real time.
Furthermore, I don't think we have any canon to confirm or deny
the use of an adjectival following the first noun in a noun-noun
possessive structure. It ought to work, but I don't think we
have that solidly confirmed.
> 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.
jIQochbe'chu'.
> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>
charghwI'
--
reH lugh charghwI' net Sov.