tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 29 20:29:25 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: <<'e'>> DIpvaD tammey je
At 06:58 PM 3/27/2004, QeS lagh wrote:
>jang Dar'Qang:
> >One of the interesting things about this hobby for a non-linguist such
> >myself is learning about
> >things like 'copula' and 'linking verbs'.
>
>You ain't seen nothing yet. :)
maj!
>jabbI'IDDaj taHmoH voragh:
>
> >to be sure, some natives are better at this than others.) At the very
> >least, it would be stylistically highly marked, as in English "I am he"
> >(i.e. I am the person you've been talking about).
>
>jang Dar'Qang:
>
> >or maybe "I am him", since the 'e' carries a direct-object connotation.
>
>I think Voragh's point is not to compare the semantics of these two
>structures, but just to give an English example of a highly marked
>construct. Strictly, "I am he" is grammatical, and some people prefer it
>because it preserves both pronouns in the nominative case; in practice, it
>would be rarely heard, along a similar vein to the {'e' 'oH X} construct. "I
>am him" is the unmarked, everyday form.
Ok, thanks. I didn't see that point at all. "I am he" sounds normal, and
"I am him" sounds wrong to
my ear, but I think I know what you are saying.
Dar'Qang
bItaghbe'chugh bIrInbe'ba'