tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 30 05:52:00 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: tera'ngan jIH / KLBC



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




Back to archive top level