tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 17 12:02:08 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Recent Musings...
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Recent Musings...
- Date: Sat, 17 Sep 94 15:01:44 EDT
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