tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 08 15:15:42 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Sa'HutwIj [HI/yI]chop

QeS lagh ([email protected]) 

ghItlhlu'pu':
>Which is correct: {{Sa'HutwIj HIchop}} pagh {{Sa'HutwIj yIchop}}?

janglu':
>You are not a body part.  The second sentence is correct.

jang lay'tel SIvten:
>jIQochbe'.  lugh mu'tlhegh cha'DIch, 'ach pIm meqwIj.

jIQochbe' jIH, 'ach pIm je mo'wIj. {{:)
I agree, but for another different reason. :)

>If the first sentence were right, it would have two distinct and 
>unconjoined direct objects,

Not quite. {Sa'HutwIj HIchop} is grammatical, but it doesn't mean "bite my 
bottom". There would be a direct object {Sa'Hut} and an indirect object 
{jIHvaD}.

We know already that if there is a non-third-person object prefix and an 
explicit direct object, the object prefix is the equivalent of a free 
pronoun with {-vaD}. I don't think {Sa'HutwIj HIchop} would ever be 
interpreted as anything other than the prefix trick equivalent of {jIHvaD 
Sa'HutwIj yIchop} "bite my bottom for me".

>If such direct objects are allowed, then the prefix is wrong, because it 
>would have to be the 1st person plural object prefix - {gho-} - to reflect 
>the combination of "it" (Sa'Hut) and "me".

This is even weirder in my mind. Plural?? But there's only one thing being 
bitten. If you were to use a prefix representing the plural, you'd need to 
conjoin {Sa'Hut} and {jIH}: ??{Sa'HutwIj jIH je ghochop}. And again, you'd 
have the problem with the prefix. No, I definitely think that a sentence 
like this would normally be interpreted with the prefix trick.

Savan,

QeS lagh
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian


not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' qan je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
     - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 60,000 dream jobs! Click here:   
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail

Back to archive top level