tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 04 21:42:37 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Location of {-mo'}
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Location of {-mo'}
- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 97 19:34:20 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Mark Mandel wrote:
> Not really. It's become a custom on this list to put <-mo'> clauses
> before the sentences they modify and recommend that others do
> likewise, in imitation of the canonical placement of <-meH> clauses
> as prescribed in TKD section 6.2.4. But we have no canonical rule
> on the placement of <-mo'> clauses.
>
> Nouns with <-mo'>, on the other hand, do normally go at the beginning
> of the sentence... but, come to think it, I don't know where that rule is
> stated.
> HISovmoH vay'!
"Any noun in the sentence indicating something other than subject of object
comes first, before the object noun. Such nouns usually end in a Type 5 noun
suffix." (TKD p.60)
You're right in that we don't have any information on where to put phrases
with the {-mo'} verb suffix. It's a subordinate clause (as is any verbal
phrase with a Type 9 suffix other than {-'a'}, {-wI'}, and probably {-ghach}
and {-jaj}), and in that sense we might be able to place it on either side of
the main sentence as per TKD p.62: "Note that the order of the two parts of
the sentence is variable."
However, we do know that at least one type of subordinate clause, the purpose
clause, cannot take either order after all. {-meH} must always come at the
beginning. Therefore, we know there are exceptions to the variable order
rule.
I think it's possible that {-mo'} may be another subordinate clause that only
comes at the beginning of the sentence. Not because it works the same way as
{-meH}, but rather, because its companion noun suffix {-mo'} must always be
located there. No, there's no evidence to support this, and I won't tell
anyone using a {-mo'} phrase at the end of the sentence that they're wrong,
but putting it at the beginning is certainly a correct thing to do, and it
seems to satisfy a kind of symmetry. I like it there.
Besides, it WOULD make {qatlh} be another sort of substitution question word,
which is where all the others seems to be headed (except {'ar}, of course).
I'm not going to try to use each argument to justify the other, but it just
looks like it could all fit into place like that.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97590.2