[86532] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nom*i*nal*ize 2. to convert (an underlying clause) into a noun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Thu Sep 17 18:10:24 2009
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:07:54 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A6EE94F1DA9E@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Steven Boozer wrote:
> qe'San:
>>> Sule'choHmeH yantaHghachDaj bobejnIS. ghIq boqeqlI'chu' in order
>>> for you to become exceptional you need to watch his sword
>>> manipulation then train perfectly
>
> SuStel:
>> Your sentence is correct, but you don't need -ghach for this.
>> Sule'choHmeH yantaH 'e' bobejnIS; ghIq peqeqnISchu'lI'.
>>
>>> Or can I add -chu'? It seems right to me to have verb
>>> qualification on the pre-nominalized verb rather than a
>>> qualification on the noun.
>> We have no rule against it, but again {'e'} makes this easier:
>> Sule'choHmeH yanchu'taH 'e' bobejnIS...
>>
>>> On another subject there, am I right to use -lI' on boqeqlI'chu'
>>> or does qeq imply an ongoing aspect by it's very meaning?
>> {qeq} does not imply "ongoing" or "ongoing toward a known stopping
>> point." Leaving the -lI' off would not be wrong, but including it
>> makes the sentence that much more specific in meaning.
>
> Two thoughts...
>
> I'm not sure {-lI'} is appropriate here. What is the "known goal or
> ... definite stopping point" (cf. TKD p.42) of {qeq} "practice,
> train, prepare"? Proficiency? Or just the end of the training
> session (e.g. 4:00)?
The stopping point was stated explicity: Sule'choHmeH.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
