tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 18 16:55:04 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: bIQ'a' wIghoSchugh...

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: bIQ'a' wIghoSchugh...
• Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:54:48 EDT

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 7/18/2005 11:22:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:


> The object of {moj} always seems to be a simple noun or noun phrase, not a 
> place stamp (i.e. noun + locative suffix).  Thus your sentence would be 
> understood as:
> 
>    "In the water, the body becomes (it/him/her)."
> 
> Which is grammatical, but doesn't make any sense.  (Yes, nonsense can be 
> grammatical!)  What were you trying to say?
> 

This is why I finally rejected it myself.  I wanted to say "The body becomes 
in the water", meaning that it wasn't in the water before, but then it is.  
But using {moj} doesn't seem to be a good way to say that.

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: bIQ'a' wIghoSchugh...
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: comparative as question
• Next by Date: Re: bIQ'a' wIghoSchugh...
• Previous by thread: bIQ'a' wIghoSchugh...
• Next by thread: Re: bIQ'a' wIghoSchugh...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level