tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 08 14:20:36 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: partitives
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: partitives
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 17:15:19 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 8 Oct 1996 13:11:21 -0700 Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
> My phrase was: {"8mm" lo' pagh jupwI' Sum}. I intended it to mean
> "None of my nearby friends use 8mm [videotape]". The "none of my
> friends" meaning is what caught my eye today. Canonically, this might
> have to be interpreted more like "my zero friends", but I think the
> use of the type 4 noun suffix makes it ambiguous.
I see your point. Although didn't Okrand address this point
tangentially in the last HolQeD concerning the use of Hoch before nouns
differentiated by whether or not the plural suffix was used? I wish I
remembered this better. Something about the difference between
translating it as "all" or "each" depending on whether or not the plural
suffix was there.
> Is {cha' Dujchaj} "two of their ships" or "their two ships"? Both
> interpretations are sensible, so that doesn't help much.
Here, I'd fall back to the context thing. In a vaccuum, {cha' Dujchaj}
means "their two ships". It can take on the meaning of "two of their
ships" if we know from context that they have more than two ships or if
there is a relative clause separating these particular ships from the
rest.
QIt jaHmo' cha' Dujchaj, latlhmeychaj tlha'nIS.
nom jaHbogh wej Dujchaj tlha'nIS QIt jaghbogh cha' Dujchaj.
> But try
> {Hoch qamDu'vam} -- "all of these feet" or "*these all feet"? This
> is a bit less ambiguous, and it seems to lend support to a possible
> partitive use of numbers before nouns.
This is one of those examples I have to see in a complete sentence before
I can deal with it..
> I'm not yet quite sure I understand the correct meaning of the terms
> "existential" and "presuppositional" in this context, but I think that
> type 4 noun suffixes are themselves presuppositional, and lend that
> attribute to the rest of the noun phrase. (I think I got that right,
> but I could easily have it completely backwards, or even upside down.)
Interesting, all the same.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'