tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 17 13:31:24 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [KLBC]: Family
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [KLBC]: Family
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:31:11 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Qov" at Mar 17, 98 11:38:06 am
According to Qov:
>
> At 07:31 98-03-13 -0800, charghwI' wrote:
> }On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:14:02 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli
> }<[email protected]> wrote:
> }> From: Qov <[email protected]>
> }> >In {yabwIj vIlo'mo' jIqabbe'} the secondary clause with {-mo'}, {yabwIj
> }> >vIlo'mo'}, comes before the main clause, {jIqabbe'}. In {jIqabbe' yabwIj
> }> >vIlo'mo'}, the secondary clause comes after the main clause. Section 6.2.2
> }> >explains that the order of main and subordinate clauses is variable, and I
> }> >accept a {-mo'} clause as being one of these. charghwI' looks at the rule
> }> >that a noun with the NOUN suffix {-mo'} must go before the clause it
> }> >modifies, and argues that {-mo'} the VERB suffix should be treated the same
> }> >way. I disagree, but I humour him.
>
> [Huge amounts of clarification of charghwI''s viewpoint deleted.]
>
> charghwI', I understand your arguments in this. Would you suggest a *two to
> three line* summary that I can use in answering KLBCs that will not set off
> another round of this thread every time the topic come up?
>
> Qov [email protected]
> Beginners' Grammarian
"charghwI' notes that Okrand never addressed the issue of
whether a verb with {-mo'} preceeds or follows the main verb,
except perhaps by saying that the verb suffix acts like the
noun suffix. The noun suffix {-mo'} must go before the clause
it modifies. I disagree, but I humour him."
It is not quite down to two or three lines, but then it doesn't
so clearly miss my justification as to make it sound
unreasonable, which is what yours does, which is why I keep
responding to it. Omit the fact that Okrand did not address
{-mo'} in the subordinate clause rule and omit that he
explicitly states that it acts like the noun suffix and my
argument sounds rather weak, since those are the two points my
arguement is based upon.
Summing it up in a way that sounds like I arbitrarily decided
to myself that the verb suffix must be treated like the noun
suffix does tend to beg for a response.
charghwI'