tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 27 18:40:46 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: -vaD
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: -vaD
- Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 21:39:44 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 21:32:33 -0800 (PST) "Scott D. Randel"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> buQlu'mo' Sormey Sormey vI'oSmeH jIjatlh
> >> "Because the trees are threatened, for the purpose of representing the
> >> trees, I speak." I wind up with {-meH} on 'oS again ("in order to
> >> represent"), and now I've got two {Sormey} together, which sounds
> >> silly! I apparently fail to understand some elementary concept here!
> >
> >Well, the reason the two Sormey are right next to each other is
> >because the first one is in the wrong place. Remember that
> >{-lu'} means indirect SUBJECT. That means that {Sormey} cannot
> >be the SUBJECT of {buQlu'mo'}. And if it is not the SUBJECT of
> >buQlu'mo', then why does it follow it?
>
> Sormey buQlu'mo Sormey vIjatlh vI'oSmeH
> "Because they (indefinite) threaten the trees, I speak for the trees
> for the purpose of representing them."
Why did you move {vI'oSmeH}?. Verbs with {-meH} must PRECEED the
nouns or verbs they modify. You were doing so well...
After all this, you MUST finish it. Try again.
> ---------------
> Scott D. Randel
> tera'ngan thlIngan Hol ghojwI'
charghwI', taghwI' pabpo' ru'
Temporary Beginner's Grammarian, December 20-30