tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 29 16:02:41 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: SuSvaj, jIHlut chovwI''a'!!!!



ghItlh charghwI' ~mark je:

>>Okay, this is not a correction. It is a question. Should this be
>>{luneH chaH}?. I'm not sure at all. If this use of {neH} is
>>supposed to be a form of Sentence As Object, then the object is
>>singular and it probably should be {luneH chaH}. Meanwhile, if
>>{neH} is evolving towards being a suffix, it would probably be
>>just {neH chaH} as stated here.
>>
>>What do others think?
>I noticed that too; I've always tended to think it would have to be
>"luneH." To me, "neH" works in SAO just like any other verb... except for
>the almost unnoticeable detail that the "'e'" is missing (bo'Dagh'a' vIlo'.
>It's far from unnoticeable). So I just treat it exactly as though the 'e'
>were there, including placement of adverbials, conjugation, etc. Just my
>opinion.

Not just opinion - it is a grammatical rule. <*sentence* luneH chaH> - what
do they want? They want "the previous sentence" - IT. All SAO should (AFAIK)
be translatable like this - "yada-yada-yada. They want that." It is not
"They want those". <lu-> is required with a plural 3rd-person subject and
singular 3rd-person object, and a sentence is singular.

Qermaq






Back to archive top level