tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 19 03:20:24 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Apposition
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Apposition
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 15:16:42 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Heidi Wessman" at Jul 18, 94 5:57 pm
According to Heidi Wessman:
>
>
> 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
>
I guess I'm wondering why the reluctance to use:
be'nalDaj ghaHbogh "Sarah"vaD jatlh "Abram".
The {-vaD} is optional, depending upon how explicitly you wish
to indicate that "Sarah" is the INDIRECT object. It would be
legal to leave off the suffix, in which case I'd add {-'e'} to
the end to form {"Sarah"'e'}.
This doesn't require any presumptions about grammar.
Appositions are far from specified or described in any
canonical source, but relative clauses, which in this case
serve the same function, are right there in TKD.
So why wrestle with appositions in this case?
charghwI'