tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 08 23:44:15 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} {-wI'} on sentences
- From: Jeremy Cowan <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} {-wI'} on sentences
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 22:44:15 -0500 (CDT)
On Tue, 8 Aug 1995, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
> gheyIl writes:
> >I might be convinced that the verb in question could have
> >an object, but then it would seem an awful lot like a N-N
> >construction, although not a "possessive" construction.
>
> My argument exactly: it SEEMS like a N-N construction, but because N-N is
> supposed to be simply "possessive", it makes sense to consider instead that
> {-wI'} can act on a verb which has an object.
When I hear the suggestion that a verb with an object can take -wI' I ask
myself, "Then what's -bogh for?" But there is an argument that such
examples already exist. How do we know that these AREN'T N-N
constructions? I would like to see explanations (from both sides) of how
these examples work in YOUR theory. (I know some have been presented,
but I would like to see more and I would like to see comments from both
sides.) When using canon examples, please reference. And when using
theoretical examples, please mark them as such.
janSIy