[88651] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv)
Sat Jan 8 14:54:47 2011
From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin-0D3AUSb=Wsbb9g-bT6UGOPQsmAHw1JWareh3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 14:37:56 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
tlhIngan Hol laHlIj DaDubta'. You've rounded a corner. The broader horizon awaits.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
On Jan 8, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Ruben Molina wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 12:50 AM, lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> bIlugh.
>
>> The word {'ach} is a conjunction, so this is one sentence and there is no reason to use the pronoun {'e'}.
>
> bIlugh.
>
>> 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.
>
> bilugh :(
>
> jInIDHa'.
>
> {bomvam 'o'megh' vIghojvlI' 'ach wej 'e' vISovbej} yIqel.
> (qarbe' mu'tlheghwIj 'e' vISov)
>
> {bomvam 'o'megh'} 'oS {'e'} 'e' DaHarHa'chugh
> vaj qar mu'tlheghlIj 'e' DaHarHa'
> bIlughbe',
> {bomvam 'o'megh' vIghojlI'} 'oSbej {'e'}.
>
> {'ach} DaghItlhmo' {'e'} DaghItlhnISbe' je.
>
> {bomvam 'o'megh' vIghojvlI' 'ach wej bomvam 'o'megh' vISovbej} 'oS
> {bomvam 'o'megh' vIghojvlI' 'ach wej vISovbej}
> qar'a'
>
> qatlho'
> ruben
>
>
>
