tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 08 20:49:32 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:51:15 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998 14:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Marc Ruehlaender
<[email protected]> wrote:
> charghwI' writes in response to ter'eS:
> > If I map the way I understand it, {-meH} can be seen split in
> > two unrelated ways, each of which have two variations. First,
> > does the purpose clause modify a noun or a verb?:
> >
> > qaSuchmeH nargh 'eb. = purpose clause modifying the verb {nargh}
> >
> my problem boils down to this:
> if you don't think that {qaSuchmeH} modifies {'eb} here, then I
> should be able to modify {'eb} without distorting the meaning of
> the sentence, no?
>
> qaSuchmeH nargh paq vIlaDmeH 'eb.
> "The opportunity for me to read a book escaped, in order that I visit you."
This works for me.
...
> > nargh SuchmeH 'eb. = "The to-visit opportunity escapes."
> >
> to see if I understand you right:
> your interpretation of them being different from forms with a
> 0 prefix is based on the absence of {-lu'} to indicate an
> indefinite subject?
>
> but, technically, it could also mean "The opprtunity for him
> to visit her escapes.", right?
In this case, without context, it could. Meanwhile, Okrand has
had some examples where the null prefix was definitely
inappropriate and he was apparently using the verb+meH without
any prefix at all.
> Marc Ruehlaender
> aka HomDoq
> [email protected]
charghwI'