tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 11 19:59:06 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
aspect suffixes on pronouns (was Re: yIH? vIghro'?)
ja' pIl'o':
>I've seen many incidences of using an aspect suffix to a pronoun when it
>is used as a "to be" verb.
The examples in TKD section 6.3 are few, but they consistently omit aspect
suffixes when describing things like set membership, and consistently
include them when describing location. The impression I get is that {be'
SoH} is something akin to a simple state of being, and {pa'Daq SoHtaH}
describes an ongoing but perhaps temporary condition. Further examples in
the Appendix present a locational "to be" without aspect suffixes, as in
{nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'?} For most bathrooms, their location is a solid
attribute, and one would not generally feel the need to mention it as an
ongoing process. :-)
>I thought that <nIQwIj bIH yIHmey'e'.> meant, "The tribbles, they are my
>breakfast."
>jIyajHa'a'?
Okrand might translate it "As for the tribbles, they are my breakfast."
(Somebody remember that sentence for the discussion of plurals that I fully
expect to occur at qep'a', okay?)
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh