tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 25 06:26:19 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: SachtaH Holmaj!


> In a message dated 5/13/1999 9:47:35 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
> writes:
> << I think that peHruS is confused by the phrase {jatlhmeH mIwmey} "speaking
>  procedures".  The plural noun {mIwmey} is not the subject of the dependent
>  verb {jatlh} but the plural object of the main verb {qel}.  >>
> ===========
> peHruS would like to have been reading mIwmey as only the object of the verb
> qel all along.  But, I recall several accusations aimed at me about not
> including a head noun to a dependent clause.  So, I indirectly questioned
> what the head noun would be if not mIwmey in a double role.

Oh, I see.  (Hadn't read this before sending my previous post.)  For clarity, the sentence
we're considering is {jatlhmeH mIwmey qel wa' nav}.  As far as the prefixes are concerned,
it doesn't matter whether you consider the syntax to be

	[V-meH] O V S
or	[V-meH S] V S

The prefixes would be the same.  My first reading took it the 2nd way, as {jatlhmeH
mIwmey} as the object.  Is there a compelling reason to prefer one structure over the
other?  (General question, not directed specifically at peHruS.)  I don't have a problem
with a {-meH} clause not having an overt head noun; consider for example TKW p. 5:

TKW p. 5
{SuvmeH 'ej charghmeH bogh tlhInganpu'}
Klingons are born to fight and live to conquer.

The questionable area is when you have a {-bogh} clause with no head noun (a "headless

> peHruS

-- Holtej 'utlh

tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ

Back to archive top level