tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 05 01:10:46 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 01:11:08 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark E. Shoulson <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
>>Whether or not {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH} is a fluke, Qermaq's
>>sentence DOES fit the same pattern, only with the head noun as object
>>instead of subject.
>
>It is too glib to say "it follows the pattern, this is what Okrand has
>given us." What he has given us is a sentence, not a pattern or schema.
>The pattern is our own making, and there's more than one choice for it.
I was unclear. Qermaq's sentence fits the pattern *which I had just
described*. I didn't mean any pattern which was necessarily inherent in the
example sentence.
My stance is thus: we don't know the facts, and we have but two examples.
Let us not put {-Daq} directly on {-bogh}'d verbs until we have some
evidence that we may do so. Qermaq's sentence was challenged as not
correct, and I showed the interpretation which made it correct. Whether or
not this interpretation is correct is the heart of this discussion, and is
the very thing we don't have the facts for.
SuStel
Stardate 98097.9