RE: SachtaH Holmaj!

[dspeers@bigfoot.com]

> In a message dated 5/12/1999 7:40:20 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> Christiane.Scharf@t-online.de writes:
>
> << ><< <> jatlhmeH mIwmey qel wa' nav. >>
>  >==============
>  >Just a question about using the verb prefix {lu-}.  Would it fit on {jatlh}
>  >in the sentence above?  Would the entire phrase <> be considered a singular
>  >object in tlhIngan Hol?
>
>  I'd say the <> phrase is a direct quote, even in a {-meH}clause. Thus the no
>  object prefix, in this case the null prefix is required. >>
> ==========
> Then, there remains the question of what is the head noun of the {-meH}
> clause.  It appears obvious to me in this sentence the head noun of the
> clause is {mIwmey}, which is plural.

In which case, the comments of HovqIj are completely accurate.  Plural subject, no object,
null prefix is required.  What's the question?

> peHruS

-- Holtej 'utlh

tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm