tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 11 12:09:55 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 15:09:51 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Neal Schermerhorn" at Jul 9, 97 07:08:53 pm
You are very close, except for one detail:
According to Neal Schermerhorn:
>
> Using the example from TDK p. 38, <HIQoymoH>, and the example from Skybox S20
> <ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH>, and assuming they are correct examples of canon, this
> seems to be the correct form for a sentence saying,
>
> [S] causes [A] to [V] [O]
>
> [A]-vaD [O] [s-a pre]-[V] [S]
There are two forms of grammar used here. If the Agent is first
or second person, you can use:
[O] [s-a pre]-[V] [S]
You can do this because first and second person are specific
enough in the prefix reference that you don't need an explicit
indirect object. When I'm talking to you, we both know who I am
and who you are, but there are a lot of third persons in the
universe.
Otherwise, you must use:
[A]-vaD [O] [s-o pre]-[V] [S]
You have combined the two in a way that does not work.
Also, note that if the verb is intransitive, the form is:
[A] [s-a pre]-[V] [S]
Until the Skybox card, that's the only form we had seen, so we
assumed that [A]=[O]. We were apparently incorrect in that
assumption.
> Of course, S=subject,O=object, A=the agent which actually acts the verb, and
> the prefix uses the agent as the 'object' selection.
>
> You cause me to understand it.
> jIHvaD 'oH choyajmoH SoH
This is incorrect.
> or just
>
> choyajmoH (omissions as found in TDK canon.)
This is correct.
> Do I finally get it??????????
I suspect that with this minor correction, you do.
> Qermaq
>
charghwI'