tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 17 12:02:08 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Recent Musings...



yoDtarghvo':

>But, if I understand you correctly, (please forgive me if I don't) if you
>are suggesting using {-'e'} on a relative clause as a whole, I don't >think
it would be wise to use {-'e'} to refer to an entire relative clause 
>containing both a subject and object because you still may want to >use the
{-'e'} to distinguish the head noun of the clause. 

No, I was arguing against using {-'e'} on a relative clause.  The only way
~mark's objection was tenable was if {-'e'} was on the first noun of a
noun-noun construction (TKD 3.4), which in that case was a relative clause
(acting as a noun).  My argument was that this is unlikely, and if you look
at my example, I have that particular option marked as ungrammatical:

> 3a. * ['avwI' jeybogh qama]'e'  loDnI'  (clearly wrong)

See?

--Holtej



Back to archive top level