tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 08 21:17:08 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Krankor's article
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Krankor's article
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 23:17:02 -0600 (CST)
I'm confused by one section of Captain Krankor's article in the latest
HolQeD. He writes {mulegh SuvwI'pu'vo' cha'}, meaning 'two of the warriors
see me'. I'll accept the odd word order, which I guess is justified because
{SuvwI'pu'} is supposed to modify only {cha'}. (Like if I said {HaDI'baH
pe' ghojmeH taj} 'the boy's knife/practice knife cuts the meat', where
{ghojmeH} is meant to modify only {taj}.)
But I don't follow the use of {-vo'}. In TKD, p. 28, it says "This suffix
is similar to {-Daq} but is used only when action is in a direction away
from the noun suffixed with {-vo'}." It seems to me that this list has
always held to the idea that {-vo'} is used only to express motion. Has
this changed? The Captain is clearly using {-vo'} as some kind of partitive
suffix ('a subset out of a fuller set'), but I thought the absence of such a
suffix was the whole reason for d'Armond's original article and Krankor's
response. So, what gives? How do the pabpo'wI'pu' like this idea?
-- ter'eS