tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 28 17:41:06 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:40:26 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' lay'tel SIvten:
>Now I would say {Dochvetlh vIDIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH}, adding {vI-} "I" as
>the explicit subject of {DIlmeH}. Is context so strong in the paying
>scenario that this sort of explicitness is unnecessary?
I think part of the problem may be that you're misinterpreting the {-meH}
clause here. As I see it, the TKD sentence {Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH}
uses the {-meH} clause {Dochvetlh DIlmeH} to modify {Huch}, not to modify
the main clause. These are the two possible analyses:
<Dochvetlh DIlmeH> Huch 'ar DaneH
- in which we'd probably expect {Dochvetlh vIDIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH}; and
<Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch> 'ar DaneH
- in which both it and {Dochvetlh vIDIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH} are fine.
I think that the second is the case, and that yes, context clearly
identifies who's paying whom.
Personally, I like the idea that {-meH} clauses that modify verbs should
take prefixes wherever appropriate, but those modifying nouns do not need to
(but I'd argue they still can: {maghwI' vIHoHmeH taj} "a knife for me to
kill traitors with"). While I don't seek to make that the final word on the
subject, it gets rid of a lot of ambiguity, and I've found it a useful
technique.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
½ Price FOXTEL Digital Installation On-Line Limited Offer:
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=225&referral=Hotmail_tagline_July04&URL=http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;9412514;9681905;p?http://www.foxtel.com.au/2231.htm