tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 25 09:16:49 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: imperatives



>Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
>
>ja' SuStel:
>>{pIch Daghaj wo'rIv}
>>is direct address.  It may be rewritten as {pIch Daghaj SoH wo'rIv}.  It's
>>still direct address.  It's not apposition.
>
>jang ~mark:
>>I'm inclined to agree with SuStel, but I'm not truly sure there's really a
>>difference at all.
>
>There must be *some* difference; direct address can put the name of the
>person being addressed at either the front or the back of the sentence.
>{wo'rIv pIch Daghaj} or {wo'rIv pIch Daghaj SoH} are as valid as SuStel's
>examples, and I doubt anyone would consider them apposition.

But what's the semantic difference, I mean?  OK, so if you view it as
address we get a little more syntactic flexibility, but meaningwise I can't
see a difference.

~mark


Back to archive top level