tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 02 10:44:10 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: HolQeDlIj DaHevbe'chugh...
- From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: HolQeDlIj DaHevbe'chugh...
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:26:49 -0500
> 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