tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 08 20:31:18 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: to' nech

At 11:49 2002-04-08 +0000, Agnieszka Solska wrote:
>>K: QIt yIqeqlI', 'ej nom yIHoH!
>>I like the broad implications <HoH> may have but if you
>want a more literal version you could consider using <muH>
>"execute, put to death" or <vang> "act, take action".

Hm, I remember seeing muH, but can't remember why I didn't use it.  Maybe I 
thought it reminded me more of a capital punishment (state execution) than 
something more warriorlike ("execution-style killings").  But I think I'll 
use muH anyway.

>Also, I'm a little uncertain about using the suffix {-lI'}
>on <yIqeq>. I still have a lot to learn.

I definitely don't have a good feel for aspects on imperatives yet.  But my 
general idea of {-lI'} (which I use on imperatives just by assuming that 
imperatives are the same as general) is that any time you have an action 
that comes to an end, but you're not focussing on the end, use {-lI'}.

>>K: nejlu'pu', Samlu'pu'.
>>Gloss: Sought and found.
>>Eno/Schmidt: Once the search has begun, something will be found
>[...]I'm not sure if <nej> can be used intransitively to mean "seek, 
>search in general". Maybe it always requires an object.

I think the structure I'm aiming for here with those verbs and {-lu'} is 
like on TKD p39, {Soplu'} "someone/something eats it" [="it is/gets 
eaten"], where it's basically a passivizer.  So {nejlu'pu'} => "It was 
sought for", {Samlu'pu'} => "It was found".

Sean M. Burke

Back to archive top level