tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 22 23:07:36 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: imperatives
ja' SuStel:
>{pIch Daghaj wo'rIv}
>is direct address. It may be rewritten as {pIch Daghaj SoH wo'rIv}. It's
>still direct address. It's not apposition.
jang ~mark:
>I'm inclined to agree with SuStel, but I'm not truly sure there's really a
>difference at all.
There must be *some* difference; direct address can put the name of the
person being addressed at either the front or the back of the sentence.
{wo'rIv pIch Daghaj} or {wo'rIv pIch Daghaj SoH} are as valid as SuStel's
examples, and I doubt anyone would consider them apposition.
It's similar to verbs of saying working either before or after the quote,
implying that the quote is not their object. Direct address implies to me
that the name of the one being addressed is not being used as the subject.
-- ghunchu'wI'