tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 16 14:24:39 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Use of neH (was Re: Quotable quotes)



'Iwvan analyses:
> >Exactly.  Let's see how it works.  {Doch} `a/the thing'.  {Doch neH}
> >`only a/the thing', `a/the thing alone'.  {Doch neH 'oH} `it is only
> >a/the thing (and nothing else)'.  nap, qar'a'?
> 

to which ~mark replies:
> Ooog.  This is something I had not considered.  I see where you're coming
> from.  If "yaS neH vIlegh" means "I see only the officer," then "Doch neH
> 'oH" would logically mean "only it is a thing."
> 
jIyajbe'! I think 'Iwvan is correct in saying it means 'it is only a thing'
as {neH} here modifies {Doch} and not {'oH}. I really cannot follow your
conclusion and as you go on...

> Ah, but would it?  THAT really would have to be "Doch 'oH 'oH'e' neH"!  (or
jIQochbe'!

> possibly 'oH neH 'oH Doch'e').  A big part of the problem is the double-use
[that means to me "the thing is only it" or "the thing is it alone", I'm
open to suggestions on what these (English) are supposed to mean]

> of 'oH as pronoun and copula.  in "Doch 'oH"/"it is a/the thing," Doch is
> plainly a noun (since as a verb it means something totally different), and
> thus 'oH must be functioning as a predicate (thus verbally).  I suppose if
> you're being very picky, "Doch neH 'oH" would come out to "it is a/the
> thing alone" (not merely!).
> 
aha! now you say it yourself! 'it is a thing alone' or 'it is only a thing'
are the translations according to 5.4 TKD. I don't see the distinction
between "only" a thing and "merely" a thing. However I see "the only" thing
as something completely different from those!

HomDoq



Back to archive top level