tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 28 05:30:51 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
-qang vs. neH (was KLBC: bIng)
- From: "Agnieszka Solska" <[email protected]>
- Subject: -qang vs. neH (was KLBC: bIng)
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:13:15
DloraH, HIchuHqu'ta'mo' qatlho'.
Thanks a lot for all the explanations, DloraH.
Perhaps the problem I have is not a KLBC problem.
jatlh DLoraH:
:> Dat 'engmey law' tu'lu'. wa' 'engDaq SIqqang jatlhwI' wa'.
:SIqqang? He's willing to point at the cloud? I wouldn't
:expect a -qang here.
jIjatlh:
:qaq'a' <wa' 'engDaq SIq neH jatlhwI' wa'>? qatlh?
jang DloraH:
: "speaker #1 wants to point to one cloud"
: or "speaker #1 only points to one cloud"
: (....)
: Is this what you're looking for?
Not really. What still puzzles me is the difference between
(1ab), where volition is expressed by the suffix <<–qang>>
and (2ab), when it is expressed by the verb <<neH>>. Obviously,
the gloss is different but are we looking at two different ways
of expressing the same idea or at two different ways of
expressing two different ideas?
(1a) 'engDaq SIqqang jatlhwI'
The speaker is willing to point at the cloud.
(1b) jagh vIqIpqang
I am willing to hit the enemy.
(2a) 'engDaq SIq neH jatlhwI'
The speaker wants to point at the cloud.
(Ignoring the other meaning, pointed out by
DloraH "the speaker only points at the cloud")
(2b) jagh vIqIp vIneH
I want to hit the enemy.
Agnieszka
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp