tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 25 20:24:42 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC pong (v)
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC pong (v)
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 20:23:48 -0800
At 08:24 98-01-25 -0800, Qermaq wrote:
}ghItlh Qov:
}
}>I follow your logic, and I'm trying to decide if "give me chocolate" and
}>"call me Ishmael" have the same grammar. I'll say that they do, barring
}>contradiction from one of the real linguists on this group. (I'm not a real
}>linguist, I just play one on the internet).
}
}Holtejqoq neH jIH je. 'ach jIyay', Qov. bImISba'. motlhHa' ghu'vam!
jImISbejbe'. DIch vIghajbe' neH.
}Give me chocolate = Give chocolate to me
}Cry me a river = Cry a river for me
}Show us your Underalls = Show your Underalls for us
}Verb - prepositional pronoun - object = Verb - object - preposition +
}pronoun
}
}'ach 'ach 'ach...
}
}Call me Ishmael =/= Call Ishmael for me
You parsed that as "Summon Ishmael on my behalf."
I also parse it as "Call (use the name) Ishmael for me."
Call *does* mean "use the name for" as in "we will call her Sarah."
It also means summon, but I don't think that meaning is relevant here.
}Here (and not being sanctioned by the Linguist's Guild, I'm out on a
}limb...) "call me" (in the sense of "label me") is V+O. "Ishmael" is the
}label. I'm not sure of the precise grammatical construction, but this
}sentence isn't equivalent to the others.
I'm not going to take your word for it.
}I like <chay' qapong>. One would answer with their name, if they are honest.
}Again, the object of <pong> is 1st person singular, not the name.
}
}I'd love to see real honest-to-goodness-or-badness canon on <pong> used as a
}verb. Is there any?
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian