tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 29 07:56:53 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

'e' (Re: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: 'e' (Re: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?
• Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:55:29 EDT

In a message dated 2004-09-29 9:06:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> Note that use of {'e'} indicates the presence of an object, 

As I understand it, >'e'< IS the object, it doesn't just indicate the 
presence of an object.  There is no such thing as "sentence as object", except 
possibly with >neH<, because the actual object is >'e'<.  This >'e'< REFERS to a 
preceding sentence, so the phrase SAO is handy as a long shorthand, but it is not 
literally true.

lay'tel SIvten

• Prev by Date: Re: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?
• Next by Date: Re: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?
• Previous by thread: Klingon WOTD: ret (n)
• Next by thread: Re: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level