tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 25 17:42:18 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

neH (adv) (was Re: QelvaD chab)

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: neH (adv) (was Re: QelvaD chab)
• Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 16:59:58 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
• References: <000001c31e7b$fe273960$640f6342@oemcomputer><[email protected]>

>> 'ay' mach vISop neH, ...
>> I only had a small piece ...

ja' DloraH:
>Placement of /neH/ "merely, only":
>
>
>puq vIlegh - I saw the child.
>
>puq neH vIlegh - I saw only the child; I did't see anything/anyone else.
>
>puq vIlegh neH - I only saw the child; I didn't talk to him, I didn't
>touch him.

Not exactly.

According to TKD, {neH} following a verb doesn't indicate exclusivity the
way it does when it follows a noun.  It *trivializes* the action.

puq vIlegh neH - I just saw the child.  It wasn't a big deal.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • QelvaD chab
    • From: "Dr. Jeremy DM Cowan" <[email protected]>
  • Re: QelvaD chab
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: bu you [Was: Re: Tao Te Ching Chp. 34]
• Next by Date: Re: tlhobqa'qu' taghwI'
• Prev by thread: RE: QelvaD chab
• Next by thread: Re: QelvaD chab
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level