tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 15 08:52:16 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jajwIj
- From: "Marc Paige"<[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jajwIj
- Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:52:19 -0500
ja' te'reS
>>>
>1. <puqloDwI' DuSaQDaq> bIHech'a' (QaghHomHey 'oHchu')
pagh Qagh vIlegh.
"son-my school-at" = "at my son's school" qar'a'.
<<<
HIja'
DaH pagh Qagh Dalegh
<DaHjaj ram puqloD DuSaQDaq QoQ lIng...> DaghItlhpu'
jatlhmeH wot Da <chel> 'e' vISovbe'
mI'meyvaD wot <chel> lo'lu' 'e' vIQubta'
>>>
>2. <neHwI'> HIQIj
jaS mu'vam vImughlaH: <neHbogh ghot> "one who wants (to)"
<<<
wej jIyaj
<...QoQ lIng neHwI'vaD qep wIjeS...>
"we participated in a meeting for 'one-who-wants' produces music"
"we participated in a meeting for 'one-who-wants' to produce music"
"we participated in a meeting for 'wanter' produces music"
HIQIjqa'
>>>
>6. <janvam vIlo' je jatlh>
>"He said I use this device also."
><jatlh>Daq moHaq <mu-> bIlannIS 'e' vIQub pagh mu' <jIHvaD> Dalo'
ghobe' jay'.
(Excuse my English:) As charghwI' pointed out a while back, the only
object we've ever seen {jatlh} take is {tlhIngan Hol}. I'm also of the
conservative school that says you can't use direct object markers to refer
to an indirect object (OK, some people say its allowable; I just prefer not
to do it). It's barely possible that charghwI' is wrong and the reported
_sentence_ could be the object of {jatlh}, but "me" never could. In this
sentence, {jatlh} simply has no object.
mu'tlheghvamDaq DuHqu' <jIHvaD>, 'ach 'utbe'.
<<<
lu'. chaq mu' <muja'> Dalo'chugh vaj mu'tlheghlIj vIyaj
(pardon the english) I am of the "liberal" camp in the indirect object
discussion. It "feels" right to me to be able to say <taj chonob>. I have
not followed all the <jatlh> threads. BTW, did you mean "rarely possible"
above?
<jInaj neH> vIparHa'qu'
>>>
mu'tlheghmeywIj wIbuStaHvIS choqaDmo' qavan
<<<
Qaghmey vItu'mo' jIQuch
jIghojtaH
qatlho'
--------------
SI'IluD
wa'Hu' jIboghbe'