tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 26 21:06:03 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DujwIj tI'lu'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: DujwIj tI'lu'
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 00:05:24 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
Qagh Hoch. pagh vIyajchu'laH.
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 06:36:17 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' peHruS:
> ><< qej 'e' 'aghbe'. >>
> >==================
> >mu' {'e'} rarlaHbogh wot tetlh vIghertaH. pIHlaw' wot {'agh}. nuq bIH
> >vuDmeyraj'e'? mu' {legh} buv tlhej'a'?
bIjatlhchu'meH tetlh DaghertaH 'ej chutHey DaghertaH.
pupbe' mIwvam. Doch Da Hol 'e' DapIHlaw'. nuv Da Hol 'e' vIHar.
tlhuH. chenmeH 'ay'Hommey law' Holmaj yIpe'Qo'. Hol Dayaj
DaneHchugh yIlo'. yIqeq. mu' <<'e'>> vIyajmeH tetlhmey vIqel
vIneHbe'. mu'vam vIlo' neH 'ej mu'vam vIghoj.
ghunchu'wI'vo':
> "I am compiling a verb list which can connect the word {'e'}."
> jIyajbe'. jInIDqa'...
> "I am compiling a list of verbs which the word {'e'} can connect."
>
> Now that I've spent a significant amount of effort trying to figure
> out what you might have meant by your first sentence, I think I can
> start to answer your question -- except that your question seems to
> be based on a faulty understanding of the word {'e'}. Or maybe it's
> just a simple typographical error or dictionary lookup error, and the
> words I'm reading aren't the ones you meant to type? I'll assume you
> wrote what you meant to and go from there.
>
> chay' <rar> Dalo'taH? nuq DagheltaH? qatlh Daghel?
> <'e'> Dayajbe'law'. rarwI' 'oHbe'bej. DIp lIw 'oHba'.
> wot mungDI' <'e'>, nungbogh mu'tlheghDaq qaSbogh wanI' 'oS.
DIp 'oH mu' <<mung>>'e'. DaH SoH vIyajlaHbe', jupwI'. <<nung>>
Dalo' 'e' DaHech'a'? DaH chaq qayajchoH...
> cha' mu'tlheghmey tay'moHbe' <'e'>. wot munglaHchugh DIp,
> wot munglaH <'e'> 'e' chaw' pab. chaq qechvaD Qapbe', 'ach
> bIvbe'.
ghaytan mu' <<'e'>> yajlaH peHruS 'ach Delchu'be' neH. meq
vIyajlaH. DIvI' Hol wIyajmo', mu'vammo' wa' mu'tlhegh luDalaw'
cha' mu'tlhegh. mu'tlhegh wa'DIch 'oS mu'vam. mu'vam ngaS
mu'tlhegh cha'DIch. roD cha' mu'tlhegh DI'angmeH *punctuation*
wIlo'be'. cha' mu'tlheghvam DIwavbe'.
> DaH qajanglaH. nuq munglaH <'e'>?
nuq nunglaH <<'e'>>?
> wanI' ghu' ngoD qoj 'oSlaH <'e'>,
> vaj wanI' ghu' ngoD qoj qellaHchugh wot, wot munglaH <'e'>.
nunglaH.
> Qapbe'law' <HIv>, 'ach Qap <chov> 'e' vIchov.
bItlhaQ.
> chaq <'ang> qaq law' <'agh> qaq puS. pImmoHbogh qech vISovbejbe'.
> peghlu' 'e' 'anglaw' <'angbe'>. pegh So'be'law' <'aghbe'>. 'ach
> bIHojchu' DaneHchugh, "Okrand" mu'tlheghmey neH yIbuS.
>
> What you intend with the word {rar} "connect" is unclear to me. I
> don't know what you're asking, or why you're asking it, but it looks
> like you're misinterpreting the role of {'e'}. It's not a conjunction.
> It's a pronoun. It stands in for the previous topic as the object of
> a verb. It does not "join" sentences. If a verb can have an object,
> the grammar says that {'e'} can be that object. It might not work for
> semantic reasons, but it breaks no rules.
>
> Now I think I can answer your question. If a verb can have an event
> or situation or fact as its object, {'e'} can fit. {HIv} "attack"
> doesn't seem a likely candidate, but {chov} "assess" looks okay to me.
> But if you're paranoid about being absolutely correct, just catalog
> the verbs Marc Okrand has used with {'e'}.
>
> Perhaps the word {'ang} would have been better than {'agh}. I'm not
> completely sure of the difference between "show, reveal" and "show,
> demonstrate, display", but I figured {'angbe'} would imply that there
> indeed was something hidden and {'aghbe'} would leave the issue open.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI' 'utlh