tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 24 11:34:07 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?
- From: "Raik Lorenz" <[email protected]>
- Subject: KLBC: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:33:22 +0200 (MEST)
I wondered, wether the following constructions would work, maybe even in the
way suggested beneath each example:
?*HurDaq targh yItlhap'a'?
Bring the targ out, will you? / Will you bring the targ out?
?*HurDaq targh yItlhap qar'a'?
Bring the targ out, okay?
I know that normally {HurDaq targh yItlhap!} is absolutely sufficient, but
imagine a stressed {SoSoy} and an obnoxious, lazy {puqloDHom}. Would she
maybe have other possibilities to give the utterance more emphasis (excpting
extra {'e'} constructions)?
And I don't mean stuff like:
DaH HurDaq targh DatlhapqangHa'chugh, ghe''orDaq DaghoSbej 'e' bIHeghDI'!
}}:-)
But the point I really out on is: Can the type-9 interrogative {'a'} be used
on any imperative constructions?
Ferociously wild speculations are as welcome as canonic answers. ;)
Satlho',
-- qIno'rIq
--
GMX ProMail mit bestem Virenschutz http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail
+++ Empfehlung der Redaktion +++ Internet Professionell 10/04 +++