tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 18 05:45:14 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "verbs of saying" when you're not "saying"
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "verbs of saying" when you're not "saying"
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:45:07 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Marian Schwartz" at Apr 16, 97 07:14:01 pm
According to Marian Schwartz:
>
> ghItlh Voragh
> >Is {ra'} a "verb of saying"? I suspect it might be. After all, Okrand didn't
> give us the complete list of these on purpose--to give himself more
> flexibility in future. Unfortunately, it isn't used in a SAO construction in
> canon so I don't think we can say either way:<
>
> That wasn't the point I was trying to make. You could use <ja'> or something
> else, but my point is, if there's a verb of saying (doesn't matter which), but
> there's nothing actually <spoken,> is 'e' or net used?
> Qapla'
> qoror
>
>
Why not a real example so we can understand what you are
talking about? Meanwhile, I don't know if the simple example
{chay' jura'?} does you any good, but it is an example where
there is no direct quote. The object of the verb is the person
addressed. This appears to be the case for most verbs of
speech. Generally, there is no grammatical link between a quote
and the speech quoted. They just exist as two grammatically
independent sentences that happen to be next to each other,
either one first, with no punctuation between them. Check out
any of the canon.
charghwI'