tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 18 08:13:25 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Apposition
On Mon, 18 Jul 1994, ghItlhpu' Mark E. Shoulson:
> >From: "Kevin Wilson (DV 1994)" <[email protected]>
> >Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 00:39:19 -0400 (EDT)
> >Dear SuvwI'pu',
>
> Required? Maybe not. But it certainly should. Insofar as nouns in
> apposition are allowed (and I don't know of any canonical examples, though
> I support them myself), we have to watch for confusion with N-N
> constructions. "Sarai be'nalvaD" sounds to me like "to Sarai's wife". I
> think in order to use nouns in apposition, they should (and I almost want
> to say "have to") be in case-agreement (i.e. have the same type-5 suffix,
> if any). In fact, someone (Holtej?) pointed out once that adding "-'e'" to
> both members of an apposition pair is a good way to flag it as such and not
> a noun-noun construction, since N-N's can't have type-5 suffixes on the
> first member. I quite like that.
I would have thought that
Sarai be'nalDaj'e' To Sarai, his wife
-or-
Sarai'e' be'nalDaj To his wife, (of which being Sarai)
If one or both are incorrect, why?
------------------
chuQun