tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 06 17:23:19 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'
- Date: Mon, 7 Jul 97 00:10:10 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Neal Schermerhorn wrote:
> Another example of how this could be used without a 'stated' object, as
> SuStel
> seemed to want:
>
> yaSvaD qaqIpmoH
> I cause you to be hit by the officer.
No! Throughout all of this discussion, remember that we're still using {-vaD}
with its original meaning. {yaSvaD qaqIpmoH} means "I cause you to hit, and
the beneficiary of the officer," or "I cause you to hit the officer."
(Whether you're striking the officer or striking someone else for the benefit
of the officer himself is not actually expressed in this sentence. Context
would tell.)
> I find this interesting. So now we can say "the guard causes the prisoner to
> be cut with the knife."
>
> tajvaD qama' pe'moH 'avwI'
No. {pe'} means "cut," not "be cut," so this sentence means "The guard causes
the prisoner to cut (something) for the benefit of the knife," or "The guard
causes the prisoner to cut the knife." There is NO "with" idea here.
> This might be clearer as qama' pe'meH taj lo' 'avwI' "To cut the prisoner,
> the
> guard uses a knife",
This sentence I accept.
> but the above sentence is apparently a correct way to
> express this concept as well. In fact, it may be syntactically more
> appropriate in order to leave out the verb 'use' to emphasize the verb
'cut'.
>
> vIyaj 'ej vIparHa', charghwI'. luyaj Hoch je 'e' vItul.
By the way, {Hoch} is a noun with a plural meaning, but is treated
grammatically as singular. Furthermore, {je} means "also" when it is
following the verb, not the subject. This should be {yaj je Hoch 'e' vItul}.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97514.1