tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 07 03:51:21 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Location of {-mo'}
- From: Guido <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Location of {-mo'}
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 06:51:18 -0400 (EDT)
SuStel, as regards statements of Mark Mandel
>> Not really. It's become a custom on this list to put <-mo'> clauses
>> before the sentences they modify and recommend that others do
>> likewise, in imitation of the canonical placement of <-meH> clauses
>> as prescribed in TKD section 6.2.4. But we have no canonical rule
>> on the placement of <-mo'> clauses.
>>
>> Nouns with <-mo'>, on the other hand, do normally go at the beginning
>> of the sentence... but, come to think it, I don't know where that rule is
>> stated.
>> HISovmoH vay'!
>"Any noun in the sentence indicating something other than subject of object
>comes first, before the object noun. Such nouns usually end in a Type 5 noun
>suffix." (TKD p.60)
>I think it's possible that {-mo'} may be another subordinate clause that only
>comes at the beginning of the sentence. Not because it works the same way as
I've always gone by pg. 62's remarks on subordinate clauses. The difference
from the noun suffix -mo' is that very long phrases can crop up in a
"because" clause and people need a little leeway as to how they may arrange
their thoughts.
If I am forced to prepose everything before my main verb and subject, I may
have a lot of trouble getting to the point. vIHoH vIneH, reH SojwIj nIHmo'
'ej 'ongwI' Dalaw'mo' Soghvetlh'e'. Its kinship to the noun suffix -mo'
doesn't have a lot of bearing on grammar. One is a type 5 noun suffix, the
other is a type 9 verb suffix, and these are governed by different rules.
And whether the subordinate clause answers qatlh or ghorgh or chay' probably
has little bearing. The substitution principle doesn't even generalize over
all canonical cases.
guido