tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 10 23:40:25 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} {-wI'} on sentences (more)
- From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} {-wI'} on sentences (more)
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 20:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
On Tue, 8 Aug 1995 [email protected] wrote:
> > QIt Hergh QaywI' yInob tlhob Qel.
>=20
> "Dr asks - give the hypo slowly." I wouldn't use <tlhob> and the
> command prefixes together like this. To me, <tlhob> wants the
> "sentence as object" construction using <'e'> or a simple
> statement construction. <tlhob> simply doesn't carry the strength
> of a command.
Sec. 6.2.5. says {'e'} is not used with verbs of speaking like "ask". Ther=
e=20
are two sentences here and the adverbial clearly belongs to the verb of=20
the first sentence {Hergh} and not the verb of the second sentence {tlhob}.
> QIt Hergh QaywI' Danob tlhob Qel. or
> Qit Hergh QaywI' Danob =91e' tlhob Qel.
Neither of these is correct. In the first sentence, the verb {nob} needs=
=20
an imperative prefix because you are giving an instruction, not making a=20
statement. The second sentence is wrong because {'e'} never accompanies=20
the verb {tlhob}.
> > If one accepts my argument that {-wI'} operates on entire=20
> > sentences then they are indeed ambiguous, but not much more so
> > than the English equivalents:
> > The doctor ordered quickly, "Give a device which transfers
> > medicine slowly." The officer asked, "Give a device which hits
> > forcefully."
>=20
> The English is much less ambiguous because we're not limited to
> placing the adverbial in only one location. We could say "Dr
> ordered - give a device which transfers medicine slowly -
> quickly" but that is confusing and we move the "quickly" to the
> verb it describes, namely "ordered". Okrand allows us to move
> adverbials immediately before the verb, IF we mark this transfer
> with <-'e'> on the direct object. I can't imagine what this would
> look like with a Type-5 object, or a sentence-as-object
> construction. (That makes my head hurt!)
Canon indicates that an adverbial is placed after a noun with a Type=20
5 suffix. E.g. tlhIngan Dujmey law'qu' SommeyDaq batlh cha'lu'. (Trading=
=20
card SP1.) On a sentence as object construction, the adverbial can be=20
placed at the beginning of the object sentence, or before the {'e'} if it=
=20
modifies the subject sentence.
> > {QIt Hergh Qaybogh jan'e' yInob.} Do you have any problems with
> > this?
>=20
> ghobe'. I think this gets the point across much clearer than
> using <-wI'>, although <QIt> is still ambiguous.
In this case, {QIt} is fine where it is if it is modifying {Qay}. But if=
=20
it is supposed to modify {nob}, then it would come after the relative=20
clause because of the rule in Sec. 6.7. I.e. Hergh Qaybogh jan'e' QIt yIno=
b.
> > I am NOT trying to expand on the use of {-wI'}. What I AM
> > trying to do is offer an explanation for {N V-wI'}. I sincerely
> > believe that calling it a noun-noun construction is more of a
> > stretch than calling it a (simple) sentence with {-wI'} on the
> > verb.
>=20
> I guess that depends on how you think of N-N constructs.
> Personally, I have no problem with the genitive case, being a
> fluent Irish speaker. That's how I interpret N-N, even though
> some members of this list feel a "genitive" interpretation goes a
> tad too far.
Personally, I agree with your interpretation. I feel that N-N=20
constructions are genitive and not strictly limited to being possessive.
yoDtargh