[92723] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] To-Be-Constructions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Sun Apr 1 11:55:13 2012
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: De'vID jonpIn <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>, "tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org"
<tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 15:54:46 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmNziqy6rf7zsfdjt8TMj9ZjE+YFX5G+3xoCMmHptb8oJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> There's one canon example with the template "X's name is Y":
> {'u' 'oH ghe'naQ pong} [sic]
bIlugh! chay' chovnatlhvam vIlIjpu'?
>> Dochvam nuq? ("What's this thing?")
>> yIH nuq? ("What is a tribble?")
> In both of these cases, the question word is acting as a pronoun, and these aren't {-'e'} constructions.
True, though I still think it's indicative that the thing being asked about is the object of such questions.
>> Sojvetlh 'oH nuq'e'? ("What is that food?")
> This was given in PK as the pronunciation in the standard dialect of a Morskan dialect sentence.
> I wonder if the grammar is not also odd?
That seems like a bit of a strech; Marc Okrand says it's in the standard dialect (not just standard pronunciation), and furthermore it seems that the grammar is corrected from the Morskan example, because in the Morskan example there's no -'e' appended, but in the standard dialect version there is.
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
