tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 23 13:41:01 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
tulwI''s "case" proposal (Was: Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e')
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: tulwI''s "case" proposal (Was: Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e')
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:29:09 -0700
lab Holtej:
>* tlheD DujDaq
>* tlheD Dujmo'
>* tlheD DujvaD
>* tlheD Dujvo'
>* tlheD wa'Hu'
>
>(For the {-mo'} example, this is grammatical if you understand it to mean
>{tlheD ghaH, Dujmo'}, but not if you assume that {Duj} is the subject of
>{tlheD}. For the {wa'Hu'} example, {wa'Hu'} cannot act as a time-stamp, as
>I showed above.)
As an annotation to Holtej's post, -mo' would be legal in the second
example only if Duj were a verb. See near the end of TKD 6.1.
/tlheD wa'Hu'/ is a legal sentence if interpreted as "yesterday left" but
it would never mean "he left yesterday."
Qov