tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 12 22:32:32 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: aspect suffixes on pronouns (was Re: yIH? vIghro'?)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: aspect suffixes on pronouns (was Re: yIH? vIghro'?)
- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 01:32:04 EDT
In a message dated 7/11/2000 9:59:46 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< 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. :-) >>
======
majQa'. ghu'vam tu'chu' ghunchu'wI'. wa' ben chobDaq maja'chuq MO 'oDwI'
(Pam) jIH je. ngugh jatlh je MO: Daq DantaHvIS ghot, aspect mojaq {-taH}
lulo' vay'pu' net pIH.
peHruS