tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 09 08:44:25 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: joj usage...

Mark J. Reed ([email protected])

• From: "Mark J. Reed" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: joj usage...
• Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 11:44:12 -0400
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.5.5i

On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 10:07:22AM -0500, Steven Boozer wrote:
> Sorry, even logically your analysis fails.  Pronouns, by definition, 
> replace nouns; therefore, if you can say:
> 
>    'avwI'pu' jojDaq Qam qama'
>    the prisoner stands between the guards
> 
> then you can replace the noun {SuvwI'pu'} with the pronoun {chaH}:
> 
>    chaH jojDaq Qam qama'
>    the prisoner stands between them
> 
> ... except, of course, in the Sakrej region!

Except that syntactically the spatial relationship construct seems to be
a noun-noun construction, with the implied genitive relationship.  Are
you saying that you can always replace the first noun in a noun-noun
construct with a pronoun?  If so, then why do we even need possessive
suffixes?

-marqoS

• References:
  • Re: joj usage...
    • From: "De'vID jonwI'" <[email protected]>
  • Re: joj usage...
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: joj usage...
• Next by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: veDDIr (n)
• Previous by thread: Re: joj usage...
• Next by thread: Re: joj usage...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level