tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 24 12:55:18 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: naj wovwI'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: naj wovwI'
- Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 15:54:34 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Robyn Stewart" at May 23, 96 04:20:00 pm
According to Robyn Stewart:
>
> & > >ja'chuqlaw' 'ej vIqagh vIneHbe'. juppu'wI' tlhIH je chaH 'e' vISov.
> & >
> & > "tlhIH chaH je" qar'a'?
> &
> & {... 'ej jIqagh vIneHbe'.} qar'a'? And the second sentence
> & already makes sense as "I know that they are you and my
> & friends." If you move {je}, since {chaH} is being treated as a
> & verb here, then {je} becomes adverbial ...
>
> charghwI' has interpreted the sentence the way I wrote it, but
> it is obviously confusing. I should have said. tlhIH chaH 'e' vISov
> 'ej juppu'wI' tlhIH 'e' vI...qel? (I want "consider.")
Nope. Remember that {'e'} is a pronoun which represent an
entire sentence. So where is the sentence here that {'e'}
represents? It looks as if it represents {tlhIH chaH}. If this
is what you want, then since {chaH} has no Type 5 {-'e'}
suffix, it must be the verb and {tlhIH} must be its subject. "I
know that you are them." Is that want you wanted? If so, I
think you would have done much better to say something like
{nuvpu'vetlh tlhIH 'e' vISov}. "I know that you are those
persons." It would just be a lot less confusing than stringing
two pronouns together.
> tuyajlaw'mo' jIQuchqu'. qechmey chu' vIQummeH HolwIj chu'
> vIlo'laHlaw'. Holna' 'oHbej!
Holna' 'oHba'. Holna' 'oHta' 'ej 'oHtaH.
> Oh, and thank you both for your *excellent* explanations of roaming
> adverbs. cha'DIch mu'tlheghDaq 'oH vIlanlaH DaH 'e' vIyaj.
maj.
> & > ~mark
> &
> & charghwI'
>
> wovwI'
charghwI'
--
reH lugh charghwI' net Sov.