tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 16 06:02:45 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Appositive
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Appositive
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 98 07:46:01 EST
ja' peHruS:
>In a message dated 98-09-15 13:05:30 EDT, Voragh presents:
>
><< DuraS tuq tlhIngan yejquv patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH DuraS be'nI'pu'
> lurSa' be'etor je. >>
>
>Again, a canon source on which I need an explanation.
>
>Why does the adverb {reH} follow the object-marker of the clause {'e'}? I
>thought adverbs precede object+verb+subject basic sentence
Without any special rules to apply, we merely assume that the "adverbs
first" rule applies to the second sentence of a sentence as object.
Is it a special case with exceptional grammar? We don't know. We do
know that adverbs can come after an object having the suffix {-'e'};
perhaps the pronoun {'e'} acts similarly. Or perhaps misplacing the
adverb like this is just a common error like leaving off {lu-}.
I commented on exactly this issue less than two months ago. I repeat
my words from July 31 here for your convenience:
>This sentence also puts an aspect suffix on the second verb of a
>sentence as object, something clearly forbidden in TKD. It isn't just
>giving us an example of usage we didn't know about. It's actually
>contradicting usage we *do* know about. When canon examples differ
>from explicit canon rules, I tend to put more weight on the rules.
>We've already got undeniable misspellings, mispronunciations, and
>mistakes of other sorts in canon (cha'maH wa' vatlh rep = noon comes
>to mind). Until either this is unambiguously explained or we get an
>adequate supply of supporting phrases, I'm not going to worry much
>about why {reH} comes after {'e'} in this particular example.
-- ghunchu'wI'