[94070] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh cha'maH cha':
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Mon Jul 16 07:13:27 2012
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmOc=B-rppT2RzVk_c0YrV-3BpOGfQCSG5uwpXb+xDBbnA@mail.gmail.com>
From: ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:13:52 -0400
To: De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Cc: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:21 AM, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
> {nuHmeyDaj neH chaH}
>
> Which applies first, the {neH} or the {-Daj}? Can this be read as "they're her only weapons (and she has no other weapon)"?
I wouldn't read it that way.
> (And if not, how would one express this latter idea?)
{nuHmeyDaj mob chaH}
I once ordered {bIQ neH} to drink at a restaurant. Marc Okrand, sitting across the table from me, suggested that I really meant {bIQ mob}. That would have been proper if I were not having anything else. As I did intend to order food as well, however, my usage was correct. I wanted "mere water" as opposed to "water alone".
> I think {ghaHvaD nuHmey neH chaH} is clearer.
>
> Qov:
> > yaj. It's the way it is because I don't want it read as "They want her weapons.".
I *think* the explicit {chaH} would be sufficiently unexpected to make that interpretation unlikely. Already knowing the intent makes it impossible to know if it's unlikely *enough*, though.
> > To my understanding, neH after a boy trivializes the noun and after a verb, the whole phrase.
>
> Boy?
Autocorrect failure for a mistapped "noun", obviously.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
