Could someone use a construction like the following ? romuluS yaS vIcheHmoHta'; qaQaHmeH 'e' vIqaSmoH I caused the romulan officer to defect; in order to help you I caused that to happen And yes, I know that I can rephrase, but the problem (or my problem anyway..) is whether we can have a {-meH} clause before the {'e'} of a sao. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
This shouldn’t be a grammatical problem at all. I do wonder whether it should be {romuluS yaS} or {romuluSngan yaS}, though. We’d be more likely to say {tlhIngan yaS} than to say {Qo’noS yaS}, after all. Unlike some Type 9 verb suffixes, {-meH} needs to precede the noun or verb it modifies, so in this case, it can’t be misinterpreted as applying to anything before the semicolon. I’m omitting commentary on punctuation... It’s never been suggested that a {-meH} clause could modify the pronoun {‘e’}, so it has to apply to the main verb, {vIqaSmoH}. I know you said that you know it could be rephrased, and you aren’t interested in that, but I honestly think it would be cleaner, simpler, and more direct to just say: {qaQaHmeH romuluSngan yaS vIcheHmoHta’.} It just seems weirdly redundant to say that you caused it to happen that you caused X. That’s a bigger issue for me than your question about whether or not {-meH} clauses can precede {‘e’}. We’ve seen other beginning-of-sentence stuff show up before {‘e’}. {-meH} is not special in this regard. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 10, 2020, at 10:09 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Could someone use a construction like the following ?
romuluS yaS vIcheHmoHta'; qaQaHmeH 'e' vIqaSmoH I caused the romulan officer to defect; in order to help you I caused that to happen
And yes, I know that I can rephrase, but the problem (or my problem anyway..) is whether we can have a {-meH} clause before the {'e'} of a sao.
~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI':
I honestly think it would be cleaner, simpler, and more direct to just say: {qaQaHmeH romuluSngan yaS vIcheHmoHta’.}
I agree with you 100%. This would be my first choice too. The only reason I wrote the {romuluS yaS vIcheHmoHta'; qaQaHmeH 'e' vIqaSmoH}, was because I just needed an example. charghwI':
We’ve seen other beginning-of-sentence stuff show up before {‘e’}. {-meH} is not special in this regard.
I remember, quite some time ago, I had asked whether we could have a {qaStaHvIS whatever}, or a {verb-DI'}, or a {verb-mo'} before the {'e'} of a sao. If I remember correctly, then, there wasn't a definite answer, and the whole matter ended with a conclusion along the lines of: "shut up, and put the {qaStaHvIS whatever}, or a {verb-DI'}, or a {verb-mo'}, *after* the verb following the 'e' of the sao". But the problem with the {-meH} is that it can't be placed after the verb following the 'e' of the sao". Anyways, thanks for taking the time to reply. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
participants (2)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
Will Martin