tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 11 03:03:46 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Apposition
- From: Nick Nicholas <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Apposition
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 17:51:15 +1000
- Organization: Ling & App Ling, Uni of Melbourne
> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 97 22:20:54 UT
> From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Apposition
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> ghItlh peHruS:
> >> mogh puqloD 'oHbogh wo'rIv'e' jIH
> >> I am Worf, Mogh's son.
> >I'd write mogh puqloD wo'rIv jIH
> That would seem to read "I am Worf of the son of Mogh." The whole thing I'm
> going for is avoiding the N-N apposition which looks just like possession.
> If I say
> verengan jagh parwI' ghaH
> it means "He is the hater of the enemy of the Ferengi." It cannot mean "He
> is the enemy of the Ferengi, the hater," or "He is the Ferengi, the hater of
> the enemy."
I think there is canon testifying to N N being apposition; in which case N-N
is actually ambiguous, although the possessive interpretation would be
preferred. I'm surprised noone has suggested a construction which was
suggested some time back, and avoids this problem: N-'e' N-'e': mogh
puqloD'e', wo'rIv'e' jIH.
--
"Assuming, for whatever reasons, that neither scholar presented the evidence
properly, then there remains a body of evidence you have not yet destroyed
because it has never been presented." --- Harold Fleming
|NickNicholas|Linguistics&AppliedLinguistics|UniversityOfMelbourne|Australia|
| [email protected] http://www.lexicon.net.au/~opoudjis |