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 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 ghaH, then what's the verb? And if there is no verb, then what's the ghaH doing in tlhIngan ghaH yaS'e'?
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org