[tlhIngan Hol] paq'batlh mu'tlhegh

[mayqel qunenoS]

I agree. Obviously there is grammar here, which we don't yet know. Because
of this reason, attempts to analyze sentences like the aforementioned one
are futile.

let alone draw conclusions, which we could employ in our daily writing.
Obviously this is another {ngIq} case..

qunnoH jan puqloD
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

On 18 Dec 2016 2:55 pm, "SuStel" <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 12/18/2016 6:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> When De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun, I wrote that the
> only way this can take place is if the {naDev} is considered to be the
> object of the {jIHtaHbogh}. But if that was true, then the translation
> could only be "the here which I am being".
>
>
> Unless "to be" sentences don't follow the usual rules of having subjects
> and objects per se. What, for instance, is the subject of *tlhIngan ghaH*?
> And if it's *gha**H,* then what's the verb? And if there is no verb, then
> what's the *ghaH* doing in *tlhIngan ghaH yaS'e'*?
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161218/019e45f6/attachment.htm>