tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 15 12:07:30 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jajwIj
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jajwIj
- Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 14:05:29 -0500
ghItlh SI'IluD:
>
>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'
^^^^^^
mu''e' vIghItlhta'bogh vIqawHa'pu'!
>jatlhmeH wot Da <chel> 'e' vISovbe'
>mI'meyvaD wot <chel> lo'lu' 'e' vIQubta'
>
DaH vISovchu'be' je
jIbuSnISqa'
>>>>
>>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"
>HIQIjqa'
loQ DamughHa': "we participated in a meeting for those who want to produce
music"
'utbe' mojaq {-pu'} ghot law' DabuStaHvIS.
>>>>
>>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
pImbe'law' wotmey 'e' vIHar. mu'tlheghvamDaq DoS (=object) lughajbe'
{ja'}{jatlh} je. *"he reports me" 'oS <muja'> 'ej "he reports _to_ me" 'oSbe'
'e' vIHar.
>(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>.
<jIHvaD taj Danob> vImaS
>I have
>not followed all the <jatlh> threads. BTW, did you mean "rarely possible"
^^^^^^
>above?
(jIHaghtaH)
>--------------
>SI'IluD
>wa'Hu' jIboghbe'
>
-- ter'eS