tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 05 21:35:59 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Trying to translate qIDHom
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Trying to translate qIDHom
- Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 21:35:29 -0800
At 20:14 98-01-05 -0800, ~mark wrote:
}>Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 20:12:24 -0800 (PST)
}>From: Qov <[email protected]>
}>
}>At 19:36 98-01-02 -0800, Qermaq wrote:
}>}peqaw - chaq qabqu' Qermaq qIDmey, 'ach qaybe'!
}>}
}>}ghItlh Qov:
}>}
}>}<veng wa'DIchDaq ghaHtaH> alone is "He is in the First City". To say "The
}>}warrior is in the First City", we need to add <SuvwI''e'> because the
}>}pronoun <ghaH> acts as a verb, right? (I find no canon to explicitly support
}>}it or forbid it, but it seems consistent with other 6.3. usage.) So in this
}>}case I believe I added <-'e'> correctly. No emphasis on <SuvwI'> intended or
}>}implied.
}>
}>bIlugh. jIQonglaw'.
}
}Hmm. See, I've never been sure about this one. The mandatory -'e' seems
}to be given only when a pronoun is used to "equate" two nouns, i.e. N
}pronoun N'e'. In this case, we're not equating anything; this is
}qualitatively different. We're using the pronoun as an existential "to
}be", not an equation. I think we went through this once before. I tend to
}think that the -'e' really isn't necessary here. Canon disagrees with me,
}in that it seems always to have the -'e', so what do I know? I could
}answer that those happens to be sentences in which the noun is emphasized,
}but that's reaching. Even assuming I'm right (for whatever reason you'd do
}something like that), I could easily see that language development would
}select towards requiring the -'e' in this case, as speakers try to make the
}similar constructions conform to one another.
TKD page 68. {pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la''e'} Be sure. I was just plain wrong.
I think I forgot what the beginning of the sentence was before I got to the end.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian