[87395] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Numbers with pronouns
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Tue Dec 1 16:35:27 2009
In-Reply-To: <4B1581B4.8090904@trimboli.name>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:34:15 -0500
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:51 PM, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> > Just to be sure, though: there isn't
>> anything in canon that precludes the use of an adverb with a verbal
>> pronoun; it just seems odd?
>
> Not that I'm aware of. It does seem odd, though, and lacking any
> examples, I would avoid it.
The extreme oddness is probably due to the fact that {nItebHa'
maHtaHvIS} has neither an object nor a locative, which are the only
two ways TKD describes how to use a pronoun in the sense of "to be".
The closest thing I can get from this phrase is "Acting in concert,
while we 'be'..." No, it really doesn't work. The obvious intent is
{matay'taHvIS} "while we are together". For example, from TKW page
209:
{wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap}
"We succeed together in a greater whole."
In general, adding adverbials or time stamps or other
appropriately-marked nouns at the beginning of a "to be" sentence
doesn't seem wrong to me: {SuSmo' reH qoH ghaH} "He is always a fool
because of the wind," or the canon {DaHjaj SuvwI' SoH} "Today you are
a warrior." It's when the sentence *lacks* the pieces described in TKD
that it falls short of conveying a proper meaning.
-- ghunchu'wI'
