tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 08 13:40:08 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: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 13:40:08 -0400 (EDT)
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> charghwI' writes:
> >I'm reminded of the cartoon...
> >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.
>
> In case you missed it in the middle of my previous post on the subject,
> check out TKD 3.2.2 for just such a subtle hint. {baH} has an implied
> object which accompanies it apparently unscathed through the application of
> {-wI'}.
>
> (So there!)
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
THIS is what you call a justification for having explicit noun
and adverbial tagging along with a verb with {-wI'} appended?
bzzzzzzzzzzzt. Thank you for playing.
Verbs in one language simply imply objects or prepositions or
other things within the verb itself. That does not mean that
you can then take explicit objects or adverbials and tag them
on words after they are nominalized. This is not a worthwhile
argument.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |