tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 03 10:28:18 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KBTP: Response, Jonah v2
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KBTP: Response, Jonah v2
- Date: Thu, 03 Mar 94 23:25:56 EST
>Actually, even if you don't trust appositives, they make more sense if they
>have "-Daq" on them; they're closer to seeming acceptable. If you think
>about it as though words with "-Daq" on them fill the "locative place" of
>the sentence (Yes, Nick, some Lojbanic thought here), then flagging *two*
>nouns with "-Daq" somehow crams both of them into that place. It doesn't
>necessarily imply that they're the same, but it does imply that they both
>fill that place: go to Nineveh, go to the big city. Appositives in subject
>or object places don't have that to fall back on, since they could be in
>noun-noun constructions or unmarked other places (like nouns of time), but
>case-marked nouns can get away with it more. That make any sense?
Yes, and perhaps if you have occasion to need an appositive for subject or
object position, you could tack {-'e'} onto both the nouns. This way, it
couldn't be interpreted as a noun-noun construction for this reason, from
TKD, section 3.4, pg.31, "When the noun-noun contruction is used, only the
second noun can take syntactic suffixes (Type 5)."
Thus, a construction like {torgh'e' jup'e' vIlegh} could be interpreted "I
see Torg, a friend." According to TKD, it could not be interpreted "I see
Torg's friend," because the first noun in a possessive construction cannot
take a Type 5 suffix, like {-'e'}.
This seems to me like such a delightfully useful appositive construction,
that I'm tempted to employ from now on, when I come across the need for
equivocating two nouns without an ugly {'oHbogh}/{ghaHbogh}/etc. to muddy up
the translation.
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos