tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 05 21:40:49 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Mole's tale
David Trimboli wrote:
>
> 'ey lutlIj 'ach . . .
>
> I liked your story, however . . .
>
> [email protected] on behalf of Scott Murphy wrote:
> > You probably noticed that I use the sentence "chay' qaSpu' 'e' luSovbe'".
> [...]
> > Using question words as
> > objects of "'e'" constructions is a natural way to express certain ideas.
> > If it weren't, nobody would be doing it.
>
> jIQoch! chaq DIvI' Hol jatlhwI'vaD motlh QubmeH mIwvam, 'ach Hoch jatlhwI'vaD
> motlh 'e' Daj ngoDHeyvam.
>
> I disagree. This might be a normal way of thinking for English speakers, but
> that doesn't prove that all languages work this way.
>
All the language I have studied except two do happen to work in a very
similar way.
I have verified this with this type of sentence that is in the Bible.
(I have many translations of it: Mark 1:24 (which I noted by Nick
Nicholas' translation of Mark <De' QaQ'e' ghItlhbogh *marqoS*)
I checked the Bible translated Puutonghuah--Mandarin Chinese,
Hankukmal--Korean, Euskera=Basque, Urdu, Farsi, Ukranian, Hoy=Armenian,
Turkce=Turkish, Fus-ha--Arabic, Shona, and Dinehke'=Navajo.
All except Dinehke' work a very similar way but I am not very familiar
with that language.
A lot of these languages I mentioned have fairly different grammars
(especially dealing with relative phrase)
mughtej