tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 08 12:58:37 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: partitives...
- From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: partitives...
- Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 15:57:06 -0300
- Encoding: 40 TEXT
~markvo':
> Hey, just noticed something while skimming mail that I haven't read
through
> properly yet:
>
> What about "mangghom" for "army"? That's a partitive with the quantifier
> AFTER the noun, not before as Glen claims.
I don't buy /ghom/ as a quantifier. Quantifiers identify some quantity of
objects. Words like some, a few, many, all, most.
some of the ghosts are in the house
all of the ghosts are in the house
These also happen to be presuppositional, because the presuppose the
existence of ghosts. Contrast these with existentials, which assert the
existence of ghosts:
some ghosts are in the house
a few ghosts are in the house
But you can't get the same kind of contrast with "group", which is simply a
noun.
a group of the ghosts are in the house
* a group ghosts are in the house
I think "group" is more like "gaggle", "pride" and "swarm". It doesn't
identify some part of a whole, but identifies (more generally) a
collection. If I refer to a gaggle of geese, you don't have any
information about what quantity of a collection I'm talking about. All of
the gaggle, all geese, etc. You need a true quantifier to accomplish this
for you. It may be presuppositional, but it isn't partitive.
> ~mark
--Holtej