[tlhIngan Hol] thoughts on the perfective {-pu'}
D qunen'oS
mihkoun at gmail.com
Sat Jul 16 07:35:00 PDT 2022
jIH:
> If instead of {bIyIntaHvIS bIchul ’e’
> Da’aghta’} we had {bIchul ’e’ Da’aghta’
> bIyIntaHvIS}, would there be any
> difference?
ghunchu'wI':
> There is certainly a difference. You have
> moved the dependent clause to a
> different sentence, applying it to {'aghta'}
> instead of {chul}.
Thanks for replying.
I think I understand your comment, but I can't *feel* what the
(considerable) difference between the two is.
bIyIntaHvIS bIchul ’e’ Da’aghta’
while you were living you were wise; you displayed that
bIchul ’e’ Da’aghta’ bIyIntaHvIS
you were wise; while you were living you displayed that
Meaning-wise I can't *feel* any significant difference.
ghunchu'wI':
> It also seems odd style to have a V-
> taHvIS providing context for a V-ta', but I
> suppose it works
I'm afraid I don't understand this. Why would that be odd?
--
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220716/048b3b03/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol
mailing list