[88644] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI'nuv)
Sat Jan 8 00:57:52 2011
From: lojmIt tI'wI'nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimRmD8Wkg1undF1cs3nUA8CuRKpWCdA11z7wjZE@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 00:50:20 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Your use of {-lI'} with {Sov} is quite unusual and probably ill chosen. This suffix implies that the action is currently continuous toward a foreseeable goal, then the action will end. It would better if used with {ghoj}. You learn until you know. Knowing is the goal of the process, not the process itself. Learning is the process.
bomvam 'o'megh vIghojlI' 'ach wej vISov.
The word {'ach} is a conjunction, so this is one sentence and there is no reason to use the pronoun {'e'}.
You continue to misunderstand the pronoun {'e'}. It can never represent {bomvam 'o'megh}. That's not a sentence. You can't pick a phrase out of a sentence and use {'e'} to represent it. {'e'} always represents the whole sentence.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
Sent from my iPod
On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:48 PM, Ruben Molina <rmolina@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:14 PM, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
>> From: Ruben Molina
>>
>>> {bomvam 'o'megh' vISov 'ach 'e' vISovlI'}.
>>
>> You've hit a common pitfall. When using the pronouns {'e'} or {net}, the
>> second verb cannot take a Type 7 suffix. There have been exceptions to
>> this, but the general rule appears in TKD on page 66. You cannot put
>> {lI'} on {Sov} there.
>>
>
> Daj.
>
> 'ach {bomvam 'o'megh' vISovlI' 'ach wej 'e' vISovbej} yIqel, qar'a'
> DaH, <aspect> mojaQmey Hutlh mu'tlheghwIj cha'DIch wot.
>
> 'ach lojmIt tI'wI' nuv mu'mey vIyajpu'chugh, vaj:
>
> {bomvam 'o'megh'} 'oSchugh {'e'} vaj qar mu'tlheghwIj
> <I'm making progress in knowing the ending of this song, but I don't
> know it (the ending of this song) for sure yet.>
> 'e' vIHechpu' 'ach qarbe' mu'tlheghwIj
>
> cha' {bomvam 'o'megh' vISovlI'} 'oSbejchugh {'e'} vaj qarbe' mu'tlheghwIj
> <I'm making progress in knowing the ending of this song, but I don't
> know that (if I'm making progress in knowing) for sure yet.>
> 'e' vIHechbe'pu' 'ej qar mu'tlheghwIj
>
> qaq'a' {bomvam 'o'megh' vISovlI' 'ach wej bomvam 'o'megh' vISovbej}
>
>> Everybody falls into this trap. Some people even ignore the rule
>> intentionally.
>
> David qatlho'
> ruben
>
>
>
