tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 18 10:27:38 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Recent Musings...
According to R.B Franklin:
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Sep 1994 [email protected] wrote:
> > ... The key sentence is:
> >
> > 2a. 'avwI' jeybogh qama' loDnI'
> >
> > charghwI' pointed out that this has multiple interpretations, and
> > offered the use of {-'e'} as a disambiguator...
> > d. 'avwI' jeybogh qama''e' loDnI'
> >
> > When it came to the example in (d), ~mark stepped in, and pointed out
> > that TKD 3.4 prohibits the use of type 5 suffixes on the first noun of a
> > noun-noun...
> >
> > 3a. * ['avwI' jeybogh qama]'e' loDnI' (clearly wrong)
> > b. ['avwI' jeybogh qama''e'] loDnI' (unobjectionable)
> >
>
> As you can tell from my example above, I like to think that you can use Type
> 5 noun suffixes to refer to subordinate, relative and purpose clauses as
> a whole, and not to just to a specific, indiviual noun. 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 think you are missing something. The idea is that the
{-'e'} is not being applied to {qama'} as a noun in the
noun-noun construction. It is applied to {qama'} as part of the
relative clause, which is to say that {-'e'} is not applying
itself to {qama'} in {qama' loDnI'}, which violates the rules
in TKD, but to {qama'} in {'avwI' jeybogh qama''e'}. This is
not to say that {-'e'} is being applied to the entire clause.
It is simply PARTICIPATING in the clause and not the noun-noun
construction. The clause, including the {-'e'} is acting
grammatically as a single noun, which is the first noun of the
noun-noun possessive construction.
That was my intent in the first place, but since that seemed
objectionable to ~mark, I accepted that we had a problem here.
Holtej was stepping in to more strongly state my original
argument. I do not consider the issue especially resolved at
this point and think it is one of those things that needs to go
to Okrand with both sides argued clearly.
> I don't know
> you would be able to topicalize the relative clause and the head noun of
> the clause simultaneously without using two {-'e'}'s.
> E.g. 'avwI''e' jeybogh qama','e' loDnI'
> 'avwI' jeybogh qama''e''e' loDnI'
> (It isn't very pretty. {{:-( )
This second version is totally unacceptable. No way, no how can
you put two {-'e'} suffixes on one word.
> yoDtargh
charghwI'