tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 06 15:26:13 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- From: "James R. Hall" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:28:34 -0500
How do you say unsubscribe in klingon?
-James, N9XLC
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, June 06, 1998 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
>
>jIja':
>> >So, could we say that, as <<Qu'>> is the "obvious" subject,
>> >we want to clip it for brevity; but now the {-meH} clause
>> >has nothing to attach to anymore and thus drifts before the
>> >verb?
>> >
>jang ter'eS:
>> Well... I'd rather say we have two different ways to say approximately
the
>> same thing (and of the two, I'm tending to prefer the <Qual V-meH Qu'>
form).
>> In both cases, it appears that it is permissible, but not required, to
drop
>> the actual subject (eg. {Qu'}).
>>
>not sure, I made myself clear... what I was saying is that
>
>a) {qIpmeH Qatlh} is correct because of canon
>b) {Qatlh qIpmeH Qu'} should have the same meaning
>c) obviously *{Qatlh qIpmeH} is not grammatical
>d) to me, ?{qIpmeH Qatlh Qu'}, has to be interpreted as
> the {-meH} clause modifying {Qu'} rather than {Qatlh}
> or else the literal meaning of the phrase is
> "Some task (maybe previously mentioned) is difficult
> and the purpose of that is that something hits something."
>
>I can accept a) being the result of going from b) to c) and
>"regrammaticalizing" the sentence.
>
>Now the question is, are there canon examples of the form d)?
>If so, I must accept that a {-meH} clause modifying a noun
>can be seperated from that noun by a main verb AND such a
>{-meH} clause can modify a non-explicitly-stated noun...
>
>Not something I look forward to...
>
> Marc Ruehlaender
> aka HomDoq
> [email protected]
>
>