[Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses

[Felix Malmenbeck]

>> QI'tu'Daq maHlaw'taH. maHeghpu' qIt'a'?
> 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.

Oops; I meant for it to say <maHeghpu'meH qIt'a'>.

>> wej pa' pawmeH vay' DuH'a'?
> I have no idea how to parse this.  It's gibberish to me.

That's extremely interesting; it's meant to say "Is it possible that nobody's arrived there yet?".

________________________________________
From: De'vID jonpIn [de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 23:20
To: tlhIngan-Hol
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses

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 at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol