tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 12 21:16:59 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Transitivity
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Transitivity
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 00:15:46 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:32:50 -0700 (PDT) [email protected]
wrote:
> In a message dated 97-06-10 09:08:40 EDT, ghunchu'wI' writes:
>
> << *Object* laj wotmey 'op 'e' nIDchugh yajbe' Hoch DaH vIja'nIS
>
> Where did you find {'op}? Its definition isn't in my dictionary. I'm
> not too sure how to parse this sentence anyway; the verb prefix on {nID}
> doesn't match {wotmey}, which I *think* is supposed to be the subject.
> >>
>
> {'op} came from a Skybox card and means "some of," while {HochHom} translates
> as "most of."
'op - some of (n) {HolQeD v4n3p4 S7}
I'm guessing at the part of speech, since it is used much as
Okrand has used HochHom and Hoch, which are both nouns. It is
not in the New Words List I just posted, but I just put it in
the update which I'll post as soon as I do a little more
sweeping through my four dictionaries, trying to get them all in
synch. I had this in my Pilot dictionary only, so now that
you've brought it to my attention, it is also in my Access
Database, the next update to the New Words List and my
copy of pojwI'.
Also, note that in canon, it appeared as {'op SuvwI'}, not
{SuvwI' 'op}, so I strongly suspect ghunchu'wI' has misused the
word. We have no examples of it following the noun it modifies.
> Above: I must now report that no one would understand if some verbs tried to
> take an object.
>
> peHruS
Nor would they likely understand it if {'op} followed the word
it modified...
charghwI'