tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 31 07:39:53 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: possessive suffixes and antecedents
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 20:17:52 -0800
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>I noticed something a little curious in one of our new BG's posts, and
>decided to expound upon it.
>>juHDajDaq puq vIlegh.
>>I see the child in his home.
>I don't really know how the tlhIngan Hol possessive suffixes work in this
>sort of situation, but in English words like "his" and "their" normally
>refer to a *previously* mentioned noun. SuStel's sample sentence can be
>translated "In his home I see the child," and the phrase "his home" could
>very easily not be referring to the *child's* home. For example:
>
>puq jonlaw'ta' yaS. qatlh vIHar? juHDajDaq puq vIlegh.
Don't be too certain. ghuy'Do' and I went a few rounds on this one once.
It's easy to presume that pronouns have to follow their antecedents; it
just makes so much sense. But it's not true. It's *very* natural in many
languages to have a pronoun precede its antecedent (cataphora), especially
if the antecedent isn't too far down the line.
"Raising his ghost-white hand, the skeletal figure seated on the black
throne gestured for silence."
"In his latest article, my distinguished opponent once again demonstrates
the need for a successful technique of retroactive abortion."
Watch for it. Look around for the next day or so and I think you'll find a
surprisingly large amount of cataphora in everyday writing and speech.
Don't worry about it.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMnjIJ8ppGeTJXWZ9AQGdQQL+LxqGZn74hDzKnsyTXSkyii9nvtDCUdLR
t2GzXyhvq8dLW4PwJ4/EkzXTbTpm34MP6qVoELlXEl+HNAa3F4MxdcZuT7dZYR2/
T+SQ5u2GWKL98RG39V2t6zB2NBHRMnux
=GcrY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----