tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 12 09:55:37 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: 'e'mo' (was RE: KLIC: DaHjaj mu'mey)
- From: Burt Clawson <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: 'e'mo' (was RE: KLIC: DaHjaj mu'mey)
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:43:26 -0600
pagh wrote:
> jatlh Say'IluD
> > chaw''a' *'e'mo'*. jImIS. jInID:
>
> chaw'be'bej. <'e'> can only be the object of a verb.
>
> QInvam vIlaDDI' 'ej vIjangDI', taghwI' pabpo' vIDabe'. tlhIngan Hol
> jatlhwI'
> vIDa neH.
>
> > wej DeSDu'wIj rowIj je ngejbogh
> > rop'e' vormo' Qelqoq, jIboH.
>
> maj. The only comment I have is one of style. The <wej> is far enough from
> the verb that it can get lost if you're not paying attention. It might be
> more understandable as two sentences:
>
> DeSDu'wIj rowIj je ngej rop. wej vormo' Qelqoq jIboH.
>
For clarity I'll speak English. I like the sentence Say'IluD came
up with much better than my original sentence, and Pagh's is better still.
About /'e'mo'/: I was thinking "because of that" when I wrote it. I can see
now why it was wrong. Could I say something like <<'e'mo' vIlegh>> to mean
something like "because I saw that"? Or is it just completely wrong?
- tuv'el