tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 17 07:49:49 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Use of neH (was Re: Quotable quotes)
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Use of neH (was Re: Quotable quotes)
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:49:46 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromMarc Ruehlaender on Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:32:12 -0800)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:32:12 -0800
>From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
>
>'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...
If "neH" modifies "Doch", then it is modifying a noun, and as such means
"only that noun." "It is only a thing" to me sounds like the meaning
"merely" of "only" which is not at issue here, since that's when it
modifies a verb.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMt+fl8ppGeTJXWZ9AQEcfgL/YumN6E3VwGTGWn9gdY+zktJlukOQJed5
Zipk1pRYwLhbQYH8JeQIDuN3B5n9K++WOLRmKPI2UXRBLgHwYLMPxFqWfV+b8EJi
FJe+kLIH4EQw0YrC2/azOgKSxfNNynKb
=LoPX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----