tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 09 18:05:37 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: joj usage...
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: joj usage...
- Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:04:58 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' voragh:
>Sorry, even logically your analysis fails. Pronouns, by definition,
>replace nouns; therefore, if you can say:
{DIp lIwmey bIH DIpvaD tammey'e'}. I don't know what {tam} means here, but
{DIpvaD} definitely means "for a noun".
> 'avwI'pu' jojDaq Qam qama'
> the prisoner stands between the guards
>then you can replace the noun {SuvwI'pu'} with the pronoun {chaH}:
> chaH jojDaq Qam qama'
> the prisoner stands between them
Why would {SuvwI' targh je jojDaq jIyIt} fail, then? If we can replace
{ghobchuq qeylIS morav je} with {ghobchuq chaH}, then why must it become a
problem in the locative construction? I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm
just a little confused as to what reasons we have for believing that it
would *not* work.
taH:
>... except, of course, in the Sakrej region!
Sojvammo' maQochbe'; retlhlIjDaq jIQam. ;)
Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail