[100344] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] using adverbials or {-qu'} with comparison?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Fri Mar 6 10:53:26 2015
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:53:04 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmPFxo+46b9a-0FyvvsC8Cj+4T9mo4vTWfzjuomR6+kyjg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============4765246047953879479==
Content-Language: sv-SE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_B255497403DE4B22AADAB822FDF5D896kthse_"
--_000_B255497403DE4B22AADAB822FDF5D896kthse_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We know that these expressions can work with subordinate clauses (tlhutlhme=
H HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS), as well as locatives and topics (qIbDaq S=
uvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS).
This could be taken as a suggestion that adverbials would also be okay, but=
it's certainly no guarantee.
{poH law' natlh Qu'vam. poHvetlh wIghajbe'.}
I'm a bit skeptical towards using <poH natlh> and <poH ghaj>; both strike m=
e as a bit English:y.
That being said, I can't claim to have a better alternative.
I'm drawn to say <poH vIlI'moHlaHbogh> ("time which I can make useful"), bu=
t that is of course every bit as speculative as the alternatives.
In any case, though, I'd like to remind you of the two words <'Iq> ("be too=
much") and <yap> ("be sufficient"), which may be useful for this particula=
r case.
--_000_B255497403DE4B22AADAB822FDF5D896kthse_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
</head>
<body dir=3D"auto">
<div>We know that these expressions can work with subordinate clauses (tlhu=
tlhmeH HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS), as well as locatives and topics (qIb=
Daq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS).</div>
<div>This could be taken as a suggestion that adverbials would also be okay=
, but it's certainly no guarantee.</div>
<div>
<div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br>
</span></div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite"><font color=3D"#000000"><span style=3D"background=
-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">{poH law' natlh Qu'vam. poHvetlh wIghajbe'=
.}</span></font></blockquote>
<span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br>
</span>
<div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I'm a bit sk=
eptical towards using «poH natlh» and «poH ghaj»; b=
oth strike me as a bit English:y.</span></div>
</div>
<div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">That being s=
aid, I can't claim to have a better alternative.</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I'm drawn to=
say «poH vIlI'moHlaHbogh» ("time which I can make useful&=
quot;), but that is of course every bit as speculative as the alternatives.=
</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">In any case,=
though, I'd like to remind you of the two words «'Iq» ("b=
e too much") and «yap» ("be sufficient"), which =
may be useful for this particular case.</span></div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_B255497403DE4B22AADAB822FDF5D896kthse_--
--===============4765246047953879479==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============4765246047953879479==--
