tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 29 22:28:25 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon Phrase Structure Grammar
- From: d'Armond Speers <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klingon Phrase Structure Grammar
- Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 10:25:44 -0400 (EDT)
Nickvo'
> If the following is gibberish to you, read a syntax textbook written in
> the last 30 years, but I think it should be straightforward:
>
> S -> {S1}* {Adv}* VP {NP} {S1}*
> S1 -> {S1}* {Adv}* VP S9 V9 {NP} {S1}*
> S\meh -> {S1}* {Adv}* VP meH {NP} {S1}*
> V9 -> DI', mo', chugh, vIS
> VP -> {PP}* {NP} V' | N' 'e' {PP}+ V'
> V' -> {S\meh} {V0} V {V1} {V2} {V3} {V4} {V5} {V6} {V7} {V8}
> V0 -> vI, Da, bI, jI, ...
> V8 -> neS
> ...
> NP -> {S\meh} N' {'e'} | NP VP bogh {NP} | {NP} VP bogh NP
> N' -> {N {Adj}*}+ | Pron
> Pron -> jIH, SoH, ghaH, ...
> Adj -> V {qu'} | Num DIch
> Adv -> Adverb | Num logh
> Adverb -> bong, chIch, DaH, ...
> PP -> {S\meh} {N' Postp {VP bogh {NP}}}
> Postp -> Daq, vo', mo', ...
Granted, my experience with PSGs is limited to cursory review on the
way to GB theory, but I've never seen reference to lexical items
inside the PS rules. I'll admit to XPs like "pron" and "adv" but can
you really make claims about "PP," "adj," and "postp"?
> The business with naDev juHlIjDaq was as follows:
[deletia...]
> N' P N' P___
> / | | \
> naDev 0 juHlIj Daq
Null pronouns, huh. That's an aspect of Klingon grammar I'd missed
completely!
> --
> Nick.
--Holtej