tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 18 17:14:20 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Relative clause in a relative clause
- From: Andrà MÃller <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Relative clause in a relative clause
- Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 02:11:55 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SpDl3L1k3GHwbuXqcwVKN51gv1qwmcPL8oE4ERX0bWk=; b=m+iv+YQ0Q2Q5KfeZnDJo1HwU7XcpNx2nYaoyJPqLin+exQl4rG313JFC5rwppihGNG UQpzHcaaW8djBLKvEEG+w+Dcwv1UCuZRagv2xsBTljRy6IYmILH4tIT28qgMfMN3j/WW iIgz/sEFR+Fon7SFqNHaB9ijwD9MJ3k8N0CEM=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=rJUHIGDZzJQpjfhsV6E+p2sEr135yU9CwcK0IQLJRup0qJmAQkYqf76vHv39nrKUt/ AzF5sAuBpGZUWo40eN5mHupf0n9lHpGB7GZ1SJ/bY2HvjUcvY5YbG7p3vKr/b3GeZcVG yb9JW2xpypGHgmyJ2lvbGAGLJ32V7kLCcfIjM=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
You're right, it can't. {-chuq} is a suffix that increases the verb's
valency. I have 3 canon phrases, and it's always intransitive. Also,
Okrand somewhere said that verbs with {-chuq} receive the
single-argument subject pronouns.
- AndrÃ
2009/9/18 <[email protected]>:
> In a message dated 9/18/2009 13:49:15 Eastern Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
>> HoHbogh tlhIngan luja'chuq. HoHbogh tlhIngan vISov
>> They discuses the Klingon that died. I know the Klingon that died.
>>
>> qurgh
>>
>
> Can {ja'chuq} take an object? ÂI thought not, since {-chuq} implies the
> object and subject are the same (each other, actually).
>
> lay'tel SIvten
>
>
>
>