tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 28 19:24:16 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: jIlIH'eghqa'
>Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
>
>[email protected] on behalf of Matthew M Whiteacre wrote:
>
>> I mised the prefix. It should say "chaq tuqaw yoq puS" - perhaps a few
>> of you all remember me.
>
>The prefix doesn't match the subject. The only way this would work is, again,
>if it were direct address.
>
>yoq puS, chaq tuqaw.
>chaq tuqaw, yoq puS.
>
>The subject of {qaw} is {tlhIH}.
The order doesn't have to change, of course, and in this case anyway the
difference between direct address and actually having {yoq puS} somehow be
the subject is semantically pretty minimal. Really just a formal
distinction.
>> >wa'maH wa' ben, chorgh ben, jav ben je bogh puqbe'wI'.
>>
>> Is this really valid? using multiple time expressions set off by commas.
>
>There are no rules saying you can do this. There are no rules saying you
>cannot do this. Since {ben} is a noun, being quantified by numbers, I don't
>see why it shouldn't be possible. Even something like {DaHjaj wa'leS je
>jISop} "I will eat today and tomorrow" should work.
Maybe so, but I think his question is really pretty good. {DaHjaj wa'leS
je jISop} may work, though it's still an... interesting construction. But
your original sentence is even more original, since there's a
"respectively" implied somewhere there.
~mark