tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 30 16:50:27 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Phrases
- From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Phrases
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 18:52:59 -0800
- Organization: Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science
- References: <[email protected]>
David Trimboli wrote:
> January 29, 1997 10:17 AM, jatlh 'Iwvan:
> > _tKD_ 4.2.2 implies that the Type 2 verbal suffixes indicate deontic
> > modality (the need for, or desirability of, an event); here the _must_
> > performs an alethic function (`it follows that hell is costly' rather
> > than `hell needs to be costly'). Unless there is precedent for such
> > use of {-nIS}, I suggest using {-law'} or nothing at all.
>
> Yes, you seem to be right. Still, you'd better remove the "KLBC"
> from messages if you need to explain your vocabulary. :)
"Subject:" tlheghmey vIqel 'ej 'utchugh vIchoHmoH 'e' vIghojnIS.
'ach mu'tay'wIj vIQIjnIS je, Holtejpu'vaD jIjatlhchugh, rapbe'mo'
mIwmey, QeD mu'meyvetlh lo'lu'DI'.
I looked at the canonical occurrences of {-nIS} that Voragh posted
(as I was hoping he would), and they are all of them of the deontic
variety, referring to the need for something to happen rather than
the truth value of a statement. Compare:
{tujnIS ghe''or.} `Hell must be hot.'
(I insist that it be hot, so that the inmates will not enjoy it.)
{tujbej ghe''or.} `Hell must be hot.'
(I assume that it is hot, as it burneth with fire and brimstone.)
Similarly (I presume):
{wa'leS mejlaH.} `He may leave tomorrow.'
(deontic: He is allowed to. No one will stop him.)
{chaq wa'leS mej.} `He may leave tomorrow.'
(alethic: It is possible or probable that he will.)
> > > > DaHjaj nuqDaq bIjaH DaneH?
> > > > [Where do you want to go today?]
> > >
> > > Holtej has recently pointed out that sentences like this one are
> > > actually a question-as-object [...].
> >
> > I must've missed that discussion. Holtej, qay' qachvam 'e' qatlh
> > DaQub 'e' QIjbogh jabbI'IDlIj HIngeHneS.
>
> You've done it right here! (On purpose?)
No, because I'm not convinced that {DaHjaj nuqDaq bIjaH DaneH} is a
question-as-object (although my construction is).
> Besides the fact that you'd probably have to use {qatlh 'e' DaQub},
Yes, it was very unsportsmanlike of MO not to tell us what happens
when the `second sentence' starts with an adverb or an oblique noun.
-- The first version of that went {qatlh [qay' qachvam] 'e' DaQub},
which I abandoned in view of the possible ambiguity with {[qatlh qay'
qachvam] 'e' DaQub}. (Note that in English _why do you think this
construction is problematic_ is also ambiguous: _why_ can refer to
the nature of the problem or the reason for your scepticism.)
> you've got a question as object.
Actually, I think I've got a sentence as object. It happens to be
an interrogative sentence, but _tKD_ 6.2.5 doesn't say that it must
be a declarative one. (None the less, I'm keeping my mind open to
the possibility of such a ban; indirect questions may indeed work
in a different way, or not work at all.)
--'Iwvan
--
"mIw'e' lo'lu'ta'bogh batlh tlhIHvaD vIlIH [...]
poH vIghajchugh neH jIH, yab boghajchugh neH tlhIH"
(Lewis Carroll, "_Snark_ wamlu'")
Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected], [email protected]>
Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences
Home: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria