[93101] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID jonpIn)
Tue May 1 17:20:18 2012
In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E87711C208CF@EXDB3.ug.kth.se>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 23:20:05 +0200
From: "De'vID jonpIn" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
ghunchu'wI':
>> Your sentences with {DuH} and {qIt}
>> seem like complete gibberish to me, and I'm not sure what you intend
>> them to mean.
loghaD:
> That's VERY interesting to hear, since they come extremely naturally to me.
>
> Assuming you're talking about these two:
>
> QI'tu'Daq maHlaw'taH. maHeghpu' qIt'a'?
"We're apparently in paradise. Is it possible that we've died?"
({QI'tu'} is the source of creation though; {Suto'vo'qor} is where
honourable warriors go when they die, and {ghe'tor} the dishonourable
ones.)
However, this sentence doesn't have {-meH}. Also, I think the {qIt}
is extraneous: {maHeghpu''a'} does just as well, and it is
unambiguously grammatical. I don't see what your sentence adds, other
than apparent grammatical violation.
loghaD:
> wej pa' pawmeH vay' DuH'a'?
I have no idea how to parse this. It's gibberish to me.
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
