tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 02 10:44:10 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: HolQeDlIj DaHevbe'chugh...




> Actually, I'm inclined to disagree. I'd argue that I'm technically using
> the {'e'} as a direct object, the object of a dependent clause. What am I
> missing? Let's try a simpler example:
> 
> Hegh nov.
> The alien is dead.
> 
> 'e'mo', muSuchlaHbe'.
> Because of that (the alien is dead) he cannot visit me.
> 
> No, wait. Damn. Even though this seems perfectly reasonable to me, a quick
> consultation with page 65 of TKD clearly states that {'e'} is the object
of
> the verb. 

Of course, you could simply say:

Heghmo' nov muSuchlaHbe'.

:)

--Holtej 'utlh

tlhIngan-Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm


Back to archive top level