tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 07 13:48:24 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
- Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 13:48:24 -0400 (EDT)
Too much mail? Try the [email protected] version of this list!
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> janSiy writes:
> >TKD 6.7 (p.179): "the adverbial precedes the object-verb-noun
> >construction." Reading that in context it is pretty clear to me that
> >{nom pumtaHvIS nagh jIghItlh} = I write as the rock quickly falls.
> >and
> >{pumtaHvIS nagh nom jIghItlh} = I write quickly as the rock falls.
Thanks. I think I spaced on that when in the heat of the
argument. I also made a couple other mistakes in the post I
just sent off and should have waited until cooling down to
write. My point is as yet unchanged.
> >It turns out that -wI' is unique in this since the verb is no longer a
> >verb in the sentence and so can still confuse the adverb. Doesn't make
> >it right or wrong, but it does change your argument.
>
> Thank you for citing the addendum's clarification about the placement of
> adverbials. It doesn't change my thesis that {-wI'} can operate on
> sentences and not simply on naked verbs. However, it does slightly weaken
> my argument that using adverbials and type 9 suffixes together necessarily
> creates ambiguity.
I'm still waiting for you to state the basis of your thesis.
You keep citing that the only reason you started this was that
you didn't like the NOUN-NOUN explanation for the placement of
a regular noun next to a nominalized verb. You then go blithely
on to scoop up adverbials as if you've justified their use with
nouns. You haven't justified ANYTHING yet. You stared with,
"gee wouldn't this be cool if this worked," and went straight
to, "Anybody who thinks this doesn't work is wrong."
I'm reminded of the cartoon with the professor doing complex
math with a blackboard full of formulas with a gap in the
middle that says, "And then a miracle happened." Where's the
foundation? Where is the starting point that justifies what you
propose to do with the language? Where is so much as a subtle
hint in Okrand's words that suggests that this might be a valid
grammatical construction?
I have not seen it yet.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |