tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 14 10:56:20 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [KLBC]: Family
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [KLBC]: Family
- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 10:54:21 -0800
At 07:31 98-03-13 -0800, charghwI' wrote:
}On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:14:02 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli
}<[email protected]> wrote:
}> From: Qov <[email protected]>
}> >In {yabwIj vIlo'mo' jIqabbe'} the secondary clause with {-mo'}, {yabwIj
}> >vIlo'mo'}, comes before the main clause, {jIqabbe'}. In {jIqabbe' yabwIj
}> >vIlo'mo'}, the secondary clause comes after the main clause. Section 6.2.2
}> >explains that the order of main and subordinate clauses is variable, and I
}> >accept a {-mo'} clause as being one of these. charghwI' looks at the rule
}> >that a noun with the NOUN suffix {-mo'} must go before the clause it
}> >modifies, and argues that {-mo'} the VERB suffix should be treated the same
}> >way. I disagree, but I humour him.
[Huge amounts of clarification of charghwI''s viewpoint deleted.]
charghwI', I understand your arguments in this. Would you suggest a *two to
three line* summary that I can use in answering KLBCs that will not set off
another round of this thread every time the topic come up?
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian