[86822] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Yet another newbie!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Krenath)
Wed Nov 11 17:40:00 2009
From: Krenath <krenath@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <162416.8840.qm@web82603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:36:22 -0500
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Huh.
If I'm understanding it properly, 'oH and 'oHtaH may be analogous to
the verbs "ser" and "estar" in Spanish.
So:
'oH and ser talk about what something is when that aspect is somewhat
permanent.
'oHtaH and estar talk about what something is *currently* when that
aspect is expected to be able to change, such as a location
Sound about right?
On Nov 11, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net
> wrote:
> --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e'
>>>> The sword is in the ocean. KGT
>>
>> ter'eS:
>>> But not with negatives? ?{bIQ'a'Daq 'oHbe' 'etlh'e'}
>>
>> That's an interesting question. AFAIK we don't have
>> any examples of {PRONOUNtaHbe'} or {PRONOUNbe'taH} in the
>> corpus, whether referring to location or not.
>>
>
> I actually like plain {'oHbe'} by analogy with {'oH} used in a
> question (eg. {nuqDaq 'oH}). In the question, you don't know if
> something has continued existence somewhere, so you don't presume
> that, only ask if it exists. In the positive answer, you are
> stressing its presumed continued existence in a given place. In the
> negative, you are focusing on the fact that something is not
> somewhere; stressing its on-going not-being seems redundant.
>
> -- ter'eS
>
>
>
