tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 19 22:36:50 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: To -'e' or Not To -'e'
ja' charghwI':
>So, I strongly suggest that when I say, {charghwI' 'oH
>pongwIj'e'} or {pongwIj 'oH charghwI''e'}, I'm just saying, "My
>name is charghwI'," and "charghwI' is my name," respectively.
>There is no focus implied. Which noun is the subject and which
>is the object will make a difference in some settings, as in
>when the subject is a memeber of a class of nouns described with
>the object. Otherwise, it becomes less important which is the
>subject and which is the object.
"My name is _a_ charghwI'" is the way I always read it at first. :-/
When someone introduces himself with, for instance, {charghwI' jIH},
I'm reminded of the "walnut" episode of the Dick Van Dyke show,
where a character played by Danny Thomas says "*What* is a Danny
Thomas?"
I'd still prefer to consider that pronouns as verbs *always* work
as identifying the subject as a member of a class. Unless there
is a type 4 noun suffix, I keep wanting to put "a" or "the" before
both the object. But *mentioning* a name instead of using it bends
the rules a bit, being a label instead of a word. Somehow, putting
{-'e'} on it defuses my reflexive tendency to add an article.
>toQDujvetlh 'oH DujwIj'e'.
>
>DujwIj 'oH toQDujvetlh'e'.
>
>Both of these work for me. There is no "As for my ship..." or
>"As for that Bird-of-Prey..." implied.
Hmm. I *do* see a focus on the subject, but it's not necessarily
because of the {-'e'}. It's just how I interpret "to be" pronouns.
I see it that way even if the {-'e'} is left off.
The {-vetlh} and {-wIj} make these sound fine to me too. They do a
very good job of restricting the "class" being referred to. Remove
those suffixes, though, and the two sentences no longer refer to the
same fact.
-- ghunchu'wI'