[tlhIngan Hol] the {nargh} the other {nargh} and the {-vo'}

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Mon Nov 21 10:23:52 PST 2016

On 11/21/2016 12:51 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>> >{mo'Dajvo' pa'wIjDaq je narghpu' He'So'bogh SajlIj}
> I knew of using {-vo'} and {-Daq} at the beginning of a sentence, in
> order to express the "from ---> to"; but somehow I had the idea that
> the two nouns can't be joined by the {je}. If this sentence is correct
> (is it ?) I will be happy to assimilate this knowledge.

There's no rule against it. There's a theoretical reason not to do it, 
which is not demonstrated one way or another in canon so far as I know: 
it might make sense if you cannot stylistically join nouns of dissimilar 
syntactic roles.

We have seen /not/ conjoining nouns of dissimilar role:

*naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'
*/Can we get to the Great Hall from here?/ (CK)

(Notice that this sentence seems to violate the later revelations by 
Okrand of the workings of verbs of motion, like *jaH*.)

> jIH:
>> >qatlho'qu' voragh ! choQaHta'mo' ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'}
>> >thank you voragh ! because you helped me, from hell I escaped}
> lieven:
>> >Well, then the place is not the object, so I'd use {jI-} on nargh.
> hmm.. I didn't know that. can't {nargh} "to escape" have an object ?
> as in "I escaped hell" ?

You can either say *ghe''orvo' jInarghpu'*/I escaped from Grethor/ or 
*ghe''or vInarghpu'*/I escaped Grethor./


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161121/a52e5df5/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list