tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 08 08:49:10 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIQuch
ja' charghwI':
> [...]
>
> > Hol qaDvaD jIjeS. Hol lo'taHvIS 'ovlu'.
>
> Hol lo'taHvIS 'Iv 'ovlu'? chaq <<Hol lo'lu'taHvIS 'ovlu'.>>
> bIjatlh 'e' DaHech.
bIlugh...
> [...]
>
> > 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.
I thought of that when I wrote this. {nuq mujatlh?} - "What did it say to
me?", equivalent to {jIHvaD nuq jatlh?}. I wonder if {nuq muja'} is correct,
given, as you say, that {ja'} uses the person addressed as direct object. That
shortcut is for indirect objects only, right? So, how would "What did it tell
me?" be said? Can a verb have two direct objects?
> [...]
>
> > 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.
Is it wrong or just unusual? From its position in the sentence, the indirect
object has to belong to the relative clause. There's no other possibility. Let
me think of a better example.
{QaQ yaSvaD vInobpu'bogh paq} - "The book I have given to the officer is good."
I can see no problem here.
{yaSvaD vInobpu'bogh paq DalaD} - "You read the book I have given to the
officer"
Admittedly, there might be cases when the relative clause modifies
the object of the main sentence, where the indirect object can either belong
to the main sentence or to the relative clause.
> This would have been more readily
> understood as:
>
> ja'chuqnIS Qu' loSDIch jeSwI'pu'.
Agreed -- in this case...
>
>
> > pItlh. Qaghmey bo'ang boneHchugh qoj tuqeS boneHchugh qoj Sujang neH
> > boneHchugh, pebaH!
>
> majQa'. tlhoS bIjatlhchu'. Dajanglu' 'e' Dabaj, vaj qajang.
>
> > HovqIj
>
> charghwI'
HovqIj