[93050] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Sun Apr 29 09:58:54 2012
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: "tlhIngan-Hol@KLI.org" <tlhIngan-Hol@KLI.org>
In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E87711C1F459@EXDB3.ug.kth.se>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
You are forgetting the canon {nargh vISuchmeH 'eb}. I'd say that's the basic answer to your objection about those forms not having subjects.
--- On Sun, 4/29/12, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
...
> Last and probably least, I think it'd be quite useful to be
> able to say such things. I can see it leading to some
> abiguous sentences (such as {paq vIlaDmeH ngeD} - Is the
> book easy for me to read, or is the book easy so that I'll
> bother reading it?), but it'd also give us some new ways to
> use verbs where we'd really like to have sentences as
> subjects, such as {Qatlh}, {ngeD}, {DuH} and {qIt}.
That would be {ngeD laDmeH Qu'}. I don't think we ever settled on what noun would serve as the "dummy" subject in these sentences, and there are probably lots of choices, depending on the context.
{DuH'a' verengan muSHa'meH tlhIngan wanI'?} (I know {muSHa'} doesn't mean "to love", I just needed a verb for {-meH} to illustrate the point.)
-- ter'eS
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
