tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 19 07:29:46 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Apposition
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: Apposition
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 19:22:33 -0400
- In-Reply-To: "William H. Martin"'s message of Tue, 19 Jul 94 15:16:42 EDT <[email protected]>
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 15:16:42 EDT
>I guess I'm wondering why the reluctance to use:
>be'nalDaj ghaHbogh "Sarah"vaD jatlh "Abram".
well, this is partly the "ship in which I fled" problem.. after all, we
don't know quite how to use relative clauses as other than subject or
object, especially when (as here) the head-noun fills different roles in
the main sentence and the relative clause.
>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'}.
>So why wrestle with appositions in this case?
Mostly because "ghaHbogh" relative clauses seem so clunky and long-winded.
Yes, this is not a defensible position, but they don't seem nice
aesthetically. Or something. I'll grant that nouns in apposition as
subjects or objects may be problematic, but doubly-flagged "-vaD"s seem
very tranparent.
>charghwI'
~mark