tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 08 22:54:22 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2

I had pointed to TKD 3.2.2 as a hint that perhaps verbs with {-wI'} might
be able to have objects.

charghwI' writes:
>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.

You DID ask for a "subtle hint" -- how much more subtle do you want? :-)
Seriously, my argument stems from an attempt to limit the noun-noun
construction to what I originally considered a simple and straightforward
definition of "possession."  The weak "justification" I found in TKD was
quite incidental to why I proposed this in the first place.

>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.

You misrepresent my position.  Perhaps you do not completely understand it.
I am NOT trying to stick objects or adverbials on a word after it has been
nominalized with {-wI'}.  I am trying to apply {-wI'} to a sentence which
already includes an object.

 -- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level