tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 05 18:52:26 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: nuq as object
- From: "Stauffer, Tad E (staufte7)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: nuq as object
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 21:48:08 -0400
jIjatlh:
> > >
> > Yep, {nuq Sop puq neH SoSDaj} is good also.
> >
>
jang ter'eS:
> This looks odd to me. As I understand it, <verb> + {neH} when both have
> the
> same
> subject (eg. {DaSop DaneH}) is legal for expressing "want to <verb>", but
> I
> don't think the principal extends to phrases where the two verbs have
> different subjects.
> {puq} is serving here as the subject of {Sop} and the object of {neH}, and
> I
> don't
> think that's legal. I read this sentence as "what does the child eat/the
> mother
> wants the child", if it means anything at all.
>
I'm not sure whether we have any canon usage of the verb {neH} with a
different subject from the first verb. However, I don't think there's any
indication that we can't use it this way. We do have canon examples of other
sentence-as-objects where the two verbs have different subjects (some are on
page 66 of TKD), and TKD says that {neH} works the same as the other
sentence-as-object situations, except that the pronoun {'e'} is omitted.
In this case, {nuq Sop puq neH SoSDaj} is really two sentences: {nuq Sop
puq. neH SoSDaj}, the punctuation makes it clearer . So the object of {neH}
is actually the implied {'e'}, and not {puq}.
-taD