tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 30 19:11:13 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: RE: KLBC: be'pu'



On Sun, 27 Apr 1997 20:12:20 -0700 (PDT)  David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] on behalf of William H. Martin wrote:
> 
> > > Qatlh ghu'.  mapImmo' matIvchuq 'ach mapImmo' maQumHa'.
> > 
> > 'e' vIHar vIneHpu'
> 
> Hey, that's an aspect suffix on the second (well, third) verb of a sentence as 
> object!  Not allowed!

I just went back to see if this Sentence As Object rule applies 
to {neH} as well as other SOS constructions, since it could be 
considered a similar but different construction. Okrand made it 
explicit that {neH} DOES have this same rule applied, and when I 
saw the example he gives, I think I figured out why we have this 
weird rule. 

It all links back to that rewritten subtitle on the retake of "I 
told you, 'Target engines only!'" which became "I wanted 
prisoners." Add that to the comment Okrand made (but did not 
explain) at qep'a' wejDIch that the aspect marker started out to 
mean past tense, and you have a line Okrand probably wanted 
{-pu'} on for the second verb, but the line was already on film 
and he had to justify why there was no {-pu'} on {neH}. Like the 
{rIntaH} improvisation to keep Valkris's mouth moving when she 
had finished all the words she needed to express the subtitle, 
this was a rule invented to make a contorted line grammatically 
correct. When the filmed lines don't match the grammar, change 
the grammar, right Marc?
 
> -- 
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 97321.4
 
charghwI'





Back to archive top level