tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 15 11:58:43 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: -bogh and -wI'
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: -bogh and -wI'
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:52:28 -0700
jIjatlh:
>Do' yaplaw'mo' vIlughnISbe'moH.
jatlh muHwI':
> {-be'} is a Rover, why do you choose to put it there?
> I would have put it at the end. Or do I understand it
> in the wrong way? ("not need to correct it")
I put the <-be'> after <-nIS>, so it negates the <-nIS>. I think part of the
problem is that we really want the <-moH> to go right after the verb so we
can think of <lughmoH> as a single unit, but the language doesn't work that
way. If the suffixes had to be interpreted in strict order, <vIlughnISmoH>
could only mean "I cause it to need to be correct", which is a whole lot
less useful than "I need to correct it". Fortunately, while the suffix order
is fixed, the order in which the *meanings* of the suffixes apply is
flexible.
In any case, here is how I see the difference between various placements of
<-be'>
vIlughbe'nISmoH
I need to make it not correct - almost the opposite of what I meant.
vIlughnISbe'moH
I do not need to make it correct / I do not need to correct it - perfect.
vIlughnISmoHbe'
I do not cause it to need to be correct ??!?!? - this one doesn't make any
sense to me.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian