tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 11 16:21:58 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
lol (was Re: taH...)
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: lol (was Re: taH...)
- Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:21:16 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' lay'tel SIvten:
>If {ghaH} referred to {SuvwI'}, it would be reflexive, and thus expressed
>in a totally different way: {lol'egh SuvwI'}. qar'a'? So what would
>{ghaH} refer back to? Some word in a previous sentence.
No, it looks like {lol} doesn't normally take an object, so {lol'egh} is
senseless. {lol} doesn't mean "cause to be in an attitude", it means "be in
an attitude". It'd be like saying {Doq'egh}: grammatically it can be done,
but semantically it's almost impossible to make sense of. You'd have to say
{Doq'eghmoH} (or {lol'eghmoH}).
But I think what you're doing here is confusing the position of {SuvwI'}.
You're analysing this as though {SuvwI'} were part of the main clause:
{DuHIvmeH <SuvwI' lol ghaH>}. The sentence looks like it's actually read as
{DuHIvmeH SuvwI' <lol ghaH>}; {SuvwI'} is part of the purpose clause, not
the main one. Remember that {-meH} clauses can include nouns, even when
modifying nouns: {maghwI'pu' HoHmeH taj} "a knife for killing traitors".
(BTW: I don't see a problem with adding a subject, too: {maghwI'pu' vIHoHmeH
taj} "a knife for me to kill traitors with". I'm not sure of the stance of
the rest of the list on this, but I don't know any reason why not.)
Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp?banner=emailtag&referrer=hotmail