tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 12 14:18:58 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Relative clauses
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Relative clauses
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:18:55 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Marc Ruehlaender" at Jun 12, 98 12:18:58 pm
According to Marc Ruehlaender:
>
>
> > > I know why the serpent worms are in the sauce.
> >
> 'e' mugh charghwI':
> > ghevI'Daq qagh lanmoHlu'bogh meq'e' vIyaj.
> >
> ghaytan, jaS 'e' qonnISlu':
ghaytan, jaS net qonnIS:
> vay'vaD, ghevI'Daq qagh lanmoHbogh meq'e' vIyaj.
Qap je. qay'be'.
> <<lanmoHlu' meq>> wIlo'laH'a'?
Daj.
chaq bIlugh.
chaq bIQagh. ghobe'. bIlugh.
This transitivity thing can be madenning. The {-moH} makes an
intransitive verb transitive, and it makes a transitive verb
ditransitive, but Okrand resolves that by making the subject of
teh root verb the indirect object of the suffixed verb.
Meanwhile, {-lu'} takes the spot of a subject, but is it the
subject of the verb {lan} or is it the subject of causation?
I tried to use it for the subject of {lan}, but the grammatical
construction Okrand has for {-moH} on a transitive verb changes
the subject of the root verb to the indirect object of the
suffixed verb, which is what you did with {vay'vaD}. We can
perhaps use the indirect object shortcut if the indirect object
were first or second person, but in this case, it is third
person, so that doesn't work, and even if it did, that wouldn't
let me put a noun as subject of a verb with {-lu'}, even if it
IS also a verb with {-moH}.
Qu'vatlh! It looked like it all fit in a beautifully twisted
way, but I think you are right. There is no precedent for
applying {-lu'} to a root verb while the subject of causation
(-moH} is still an explicit noun.
It would have been nice had it worked, but I don't think the
grammar can tow this particular load.
DaH jImej. muloS 'uQ.
> Marc Ruehlaender
> aka HomDoq
> [email protected]
charghwI'