tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 05 09:01:54 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re:
- From: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re:
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:00:13 -0500 (EST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=jEpPgkvwxwDpIH2mB5gjRFq7c1DYOXh58BApHsg/b88CfApfRtgaMQwx3X2wzL52; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
qatlh tlhoy pab ngoDHom DaSaH? <<tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhchu' vIneHmo' jISaH>> ghaytan bIjang, 'ach bIjatlhchu' DaneHchugh, Qu'vamvaD yIqeq. Holvam yIlo'. tlhIngan jatlhwI' yIrur'eghmoH.
pab ngoDHommeymo' maja'chuqlaH 'ej rut maja'chuqnIS, 'ach tlhoy wa' pab ngoDHommo' maja'chuqqa'taHDI' Hol wIghojbe'. DIvI' Hol wIlo'taHvIS maghoHtaH 'e' wIghoj neH. wa' Heghpu'bogh jagh DaqIpqa'taH nIvaqtaHvIS yInlI'bogh jaghpu'.
'arlogh mojaq <<-meH>>mo' maghojnIS?
rut <<-meH>> wIlo'Ha'chugh, mayajchuqlaHchugh, vaj ram QaghHommaj. pIjHa' tlhIngan Hol wIlo'chugh not Hol laHmaj wIDub. Do'ha'.
ghu'maj yIDub. tlhIngan Hol yIjatlh.
Doq
-----Original Message-----
>From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
>Sent: Jan 4, 2007 10:02 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
>
>On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Alan Anderson wrote:
>> ja' ...Paul:
>>> Did I miss any examples?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> ja'chuqmeH rojHom
>>
>> This is the prototypical example. It is translated such that it
>> doesn't appear to be a "conjugated" verb; like the other similar
>> examples, it seems not to have a pronominal prefix at all.
>
>Are you referring to the sentence in TKD? The full sentence there is:
>
>ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla'
>
>Oh, wow, I *just* noticed Okrand says /ja'chuqmeH rojHom/ "is the
>object..." But I'm still uncertain about including this as an example,
>because if the subject of /ja'chuq/ is "they", then the 0-prefix is
>expected. Context here actually produces ambiguity; if the sentence was
>spoken between people who are third party to the events, it's a 0-prefix
>-- "The enemy commander wants a truce so they may confer". If it's being
>spoken between members of one of the parties, they I agree, because I
>would expect it to be /maja'chuqmeH/ "so *we* may confer".
>
>Definitely potential for more ammunition, but the ambiguity makes me
>hesitate to use it to "prove" the theory.
>
>> ghojmeH taj
>>
>> The lack of prefix is clear. "Knife for the purpose of learning." I
>> see it as stronger than an indefinite subject -- it's *no* subject.
>
>Is this in the KGT? I didn't see it. Also, (more importantly, IMHO), is
>it used in a sentence? /ghojmeH taj/ has the same problem as /pe'meH taj/
>if it's not used in a sentence; as a fragment, I don't think we can infer
>whether or not it would properly have a proper prefix when used in a full
>contextual sentence (ie. we have no evidence its proper use wouldn't be
>something like /DaghojmeH taj Dalo'nIS/)
>
>And again, I reiterate; I think the theory is sound for explaining the
>canon, I just hesitate promoting this uncertain use of the language...
>
>...Paul
>
> ** ...Paul, [email protected], Insane Engineer **
> ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
> If it's not the same, it should be different.
>
>