tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 30 05:52:00 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: tera'ngan jIH / KLBC
- From: "Stauffer, Tad E (staufte7)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: tera'ngan jIH / KLBC
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:49:53 -0500
pIl'o' said:
> Hivqa' veqlargh! I forgot a verb suffix: I meant to write Damechqangchugh
> or would <Damechqangbogh> be better?
> pIl'o'
>
> Pillow wrote:
>
> > tlhInganqoq jechvaD Deghmey vIchenmoH.
> >
> > Damechqang Dochmey 'IH yIDel!
> >
> > pIl'o'
> > QUESTION: if the <Dochmey> are direct objects, and the sentence implies
> > that they are also indirect objects (...if you are willing to trade
> > *them*), must the <mech> verb take the you-to-it/them prefix? Should I
> > repeat the object noun?
>
I'm not completely clear what you mean by {Dochmey} also being indirect
objects.
You can start off by saying:
{Dochmey 'IH tIDel} "Describe the beautiful things"
Note that {Dochmey} is plural, so you need to use the verb prefix {tI-}.
Since someone is trading the things, {Dochmey} ("things") comes before the
verb {mech}. The verb prefix must properly indicate the subject and object
of the verb. So, the {mech} does have to take the correct prefix in this
case:
{Dochmey 'IH Damechqangbogh} ("beautiful things which you are willing to
trade")
Using this as the object of the command, you get:
{Dochmey 'IH Damechqangbogh tIDel} "Describe the beautiful things which you
are willing to trade"
If you use {-chugh}, note that this would make two clauses - the main one,
and the dependant {-chugh} clause:
{Dochmey 'IH Damechqangchugh,} "If you are willing to trade the beautiful
things,"
{tIDel} or {bIH tIDel} "describe them."
If you use {-bogh}, there is only one verb clause. However, the object of
the sentence becomes more complicated. I've marked the object in
parenthesis:
{(Dochmey 'IH Damechqangbogh) tIDel} "Describe (the beautiful things which
you are willing to trade)"
Either sentence works, although their meanings are subtly different.
- taD