tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 08 06:59:31 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIQuch
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jIQuch
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:59:21 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Christiane Scharf" at Jun 5, 98 02:24:09 pm
wej jang latlh, vaj jIjang. nom QInvam vIlaD vaj jIpojchu'be',
'ach Qaghmey bo'ang bIjatlh, vaj...
According to Christiane Scharf:
>
> chIch <KLBC> vInop. chaq HeghmoH wIvvam...
bIjaqba'. {{:)>
> Hol qaDvaD jIjeS. Hol lo'taHvIS 'ovlu'.
Hol lo'taHvIS 'Iv 'ovlu'? chaq <<Hol lo'lu'taHvIS 'ovlu'.>>
bIjatlh 'e' DaHech.
> qaStaHvIS wa' DIS loS Qu'
> luta'nISlu'. cha' Hol lulo'nISlu'.
> Qu' wa'DIchvaD *cassette* qonlu'taHvIS Degh (picture) Dellu'nIS. Qu'
> cha'DIchvaD cha' qaDmey pIm lutu'lu'. Hol wa'DIch lo'lu'taHvIS ghItlhmey
> lumughnISlu' 'ej lupojnISlu'. Hol cha'DIch lo'lu'taHvIS *German* Hol
> ghItlh ngoDmey potlh lughovnISlu' 'ej ghItlh chu' qonlu'nIS. ghItlh ngo'
> tIn law' ghItlh chu' tIn puS.
majQa'.
> rInDI' Qu' cha'DIch jabbI'ID Hev Hoch jeSwI'. bIQap pagh bIluj 'e'
> DuSovmoH jabbI'IDvam.
> DaHjaj jabbI'IDvam vIHev. vIleghDI' jISeychu'. nuq mujatlh?
loQ Huj mu'tlheghvam. Qaghchu'be' 'ach Huj. <<nuq muja'?>>
bIjatlh 'e' vIpIH. You've apparently used the shortcut for
indirect object, which is acceptable, but unusual in this
setting, given that {ja'} uses the person addressed as direct
object.
> yIloy!
> jIQap! Qu' wejDIchvaD jIjeSlaH! jIQap 'e' vIHarlaHchu'be'.
yIHon'eghQo'!
> Qu' wejDIchvaD juHDaq ghItlh'a' vIqonnIS. ja'chuqnIS Qu' loSDIchvaD
> jeSbogh nuvpu'.
nuqjatlh? I've never seen a relative clause with its own
indirect object before. This would have been more readily
understood as:
ja'chuqnIS Qu' loSDIch jeSwI'pu'.
> pItlh. Qaghmey bo'ang boneHchugh qoj tuqeS boneHchugh qoj Sujang neH
> boneHchugh, pebaH!
majQa'. tlhoS bIjatlhchu'. Dajanglu' 'e' Dabaj, vaj qajang.
> HovqIj
charghwI'