tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 12 13:06:45 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: grammar questions
From: "Stephan Schneider" <[email protected]>
> what's the relevant difference of these sentences:
> Qu'vaD lI' net tu'bej.
> Qu'vaD lI' 'e' tu'lu'bej.
One is correct. The other is not.
When the second verb of a Sentence as Object construction has no subject,
instead of /'e' X-lu'/, one uses /net X/. This is exactly what /net/ is
Marc Okrand has violated this himself (in my opinion, unintentionally), but
I think that /net X/ is still the best grammar.
> can you say "Qumghach" in order to say "communication", or do you
> have to say "Qum"?
No. /-ghach/ is used to nominalize a verb that is itself being modified by
a suffix. That is, there must be at least one verb suffix between the verb
and /-ghach/ (and that suffix should be relevant -- don't stick a /-taH/ in
there just to satisfy the necessary suffix).
While /Qumghach/ is not ungrammatical, it is still wrong. It is marked
usage. An English translation might render it as "communicates (n), more
than one communicate" (which is not a real word).
QumtaHghach: continuous communication
Qumpu'ghach: completed communication
Qumchu'ghach: perfect communication
Whether these refer to the act of communicating, or the resultant
communication (or both) isn't totally certain unless Okrand brings it up.
You can't always predict the meaning of /-ghach/.
> when "bIghHa'" is a prison, what would be the only place remaining in
> which everyone is free?
What do you mean?