[93303] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] 'e'mo'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Sun May 20 23:47:22 2012
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 23:47:00 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
In-Reply-To: <6AB11E2A-0490-44E0-BDCF-0ED2A1B3859A@alcaco.net>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On 5/20/2012 6:19 PM, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
>
> On May 20, 2012, at 10:24 AM, "De'vID
> jonpIn"<de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ghunchu'wI':
>>> Why not just put the suffix on the verb and not use {'e'} at
>>> all?
>>
>> If I was writing and could revise my sentence, that's what I would
>> do. This came up because I wanted to say something, and I'd already
>> said the first sentence, paused, and then I realised I wanted to
>> add {-mo'} to the first verb and continue with a second part. I
>> wondered if I could've salvaged the situation by continuing
>> {'e'mo'...}
>
> Same question: why not put {-mo'} on the verb? If, for example, you
> had said {paqwIj tlhappu' jIlwI'}, you could then finish the thought
> with {tlhapmo' vIlaDlaHbe'} instead of a pseudogrammatical {'e'mo'}.
While I agree that *{'e'mo'} doesn't work, I find this answer sounds too
formulaic to feel natural, especially if the repeated verb is more complex.
In any case, in your example you'd have to say {tlhappu'mo' vIlaDlaHbe'}
because the taking was a discrete, completed event, as indicated in the
first sentence.
A more natural-sounding exchange would be:
A: paqwIj tlhappu' jIlwI'.
B: vaj vIlaDlaHbe'.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
