tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 25 23:08:23 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Direct address (was Re: KLBC: imperatives)
jIja'pu':
>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.
ja' ~mark:
>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.
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.
-- ghunchu'wI'