tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 14 20:53:31 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Lachrimosa?
- From: TPO <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Lachrimosa?
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:53:58 -0400
>...This form appears to be a contradiction to discussions regarding verbs
>glossed by MO with "be......". The discussions have indicated to me that we
>could not have an Object after such verbs, unless we put the suffix {-moH}
>onto the verb stem, causing the action to shift to that Object.
>
>But, we know we can use the construction of {matay'taHvIS}. This leads me to
>believe we could also say {Sumchuqchugh SoQbogh tlhIngan SoH je vaj
>yIyepqu'}.
>
>Okay, my CK and PK are on loan to others in my qepHom. I need to listen to
>see how {Sum} is used in its introduction to us. But, my point is, I need
>proof that your use above matches canon for me to accept it. OTOH, I am
>struggling with how to say in tlhIngan Hol "The man is near the tree." and
>"The man is far from the tree." without using {Sumchuq} and {Hopchuq}.
how about: SorDaq Sum loD
I'm not totally comfortable with this, but it could be an idea to work with.
DloraH