tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 26 15:47:42 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: core semantic case roles: agent, patient, focus
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: core semantic case roles: agent, patient, focus
- Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:47:01 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Paul:
>If the issue really boils down in the end to how the imperative prefixes
>work (with or without various verb suffixes), perhaps it's because the
>imperative prefix has a connotation of /-choH/, although it's not
>explicit. Turn it around -- does it really make sense to say /yIQong/?
>Or does one really mean /yIQongchoH/, and we can attribute this to
>"clipped Klingon"?
I don't think it has anything to do with {Hol poD}. As I see it, {-choH}
adds an explicit assumption that the addressee is not yet asleep. The
assumption might be implicit when you say {yIQong}, but {yIQongchoH} leaves
no room for doubt.
A perhaps better example: If you're not assuming anything, you could say
{boqrat chej yIQev}. If you're sure that the person you are speaking to has
not begun to stew the bokrat liver, you would say {boqrat chej yIQevchoH}.
If you're sure that the person you're speaking to *has* begun to stew the
bokrat liver, you would say {boqrat chej yIQevtaH} (or nothing at all).
So to answer your question: I'd have absolutely no problem using {-choH} on
an imperative sentence.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
Get a Credit Card - 60 sec online response:
http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;8097459;9106288;b?http://www.anz.com/aus/promo/qantas5000ninemsn