tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 04 05:17:51 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Direct address (was Re: KLBC: imperatives)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Direct address (was Re: KLBC: imperatives)
- Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 08:20:16 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:19:03 -0700 (PDT) d'Armond
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Alan Anderson wrote:
>
> > The sentence doesn't have to have a second-person subject or object in
> > order for the speaker to address the listener. You can't find a place
> > to invoke apposition in {HoD tujqu'choH QuQ}. The semantic analysis
> > of that sentence seems to act a lot like {HoD qaghomnIS} to me.
>
> I'm not sure I follow you. Why can you not use apposition in your sentence?
>
> Direct address:
> wo'rIv, HoD tujqu'choH QuQ The engine makes the captain hot, Worf.
> HoD tujqu'choH QuQ, wo'rIv Worf, the engine makes the captain hot.
That's tujqu'choH, not tujqu'moH. There's a difference.
...
> If you meant something else, then I'm confused.
If you meant that, then I'm confused.
> > -- ghunchu'wI'
>
> --Holtej
charghwI'