Ed Bailey:
known grammar rules preclude a rover after a VS9
Is there really such a rule ? I admit that meaning-wise it wouldn't make sense using a rover after a type-9 verb suffix. But is there really a specific rule which prohibits that ? ~ nI'ghma On Dec 3, 2017 06:13, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems neither {tIw} nor {vang} should be negated in this case. What needs negating is the causation expressed by {-mo'}, but known grammar rules preclude a rover after a VS9 so it can't be negated that way, nor is there any known adverbial that can do it. The same could happen with {-meH} when purpose is what needs to be negated. Maybe something like: {muvangmoHbe' tIwmeH laHwIj} "My capacity for reacting emotionally does not me to act."
My solution: introduce a higher-level clause and negate that. {jItIwmo' jIvang net tu'be'.} "One does not observe that I acted because I was emotional." (Or perhaps less literally "It is not the case that I acted because I was emotional", which sounds a little like a formal logic textbook.)
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org