tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 09 12:26:16 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [KLBC] New student joins the list. (tetlh muv ghojwI' chu')
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [KLBC] New student joins the list. (tetlh muv ghojwI' chu')
- Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 12:26:05 -0800
At 21:52 97-12-08 -0800, you wrote:
}'etyen jang Qov:
}>} pongwIj 'oH 'etyen'e' 'ej
}>
}>In more direct order: {'etyen 'oH pongwIj'e'}. "My name is Etienne," as
}>opposed to "Etienne is my name." Same Object Verb Subject applies even for
}>the copula verb to be.
}
}My preferred order for this is the way she had it: "Etienne is my name."
}I tend to think of the "to be" usage of pronouns as a bit less far-reaching
}than a simple equivalence, along the lines of "a square is a rectangle."
}"Etienne" is the specific thing that falls in the category of her name.
}I myself have many names; {pongwIj 'oH ghunchu'wI''e'} gets across what I
}want to say. If I said {ghunchu'wI' 'oH pongwIj'e'}, I feel that I would
}be implying that I have but one name.
}
}It's probably just personal preference; most people accept it either way.
I agree that the way Etienne--I think it's a male name, an equivalent to
Steven, maybe ghaH will enlighten us--had it means "Etienne is my name" but
I would only prefer it if my intention were to explain what the word Etienne
was, not what my name was. I used to think that the OVS wasn't as important
in these to be sentences, but the end of section 6.3 seems pretty clear to
me. There is a difference between "the prisoners are children" and "the
children are prisoners." Not simple equivalence. Didn't we get this
SETTLED at some point?
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian