tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 11 20:52:13 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Emphasis
- From: "David Trimboli" <SuStel@email.msn.com>
- Subject: Re: Emphasis
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:31:23 -0500
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@midway.uchicago.edu>
>: Is that what pagh was saying? I read his sentence, correctly, as "Today
*I*
>: considered only your grammar." I don't recall exactly what he meant, but
>: that's what he said. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Which is exactly my point: you're not sure what he means. (BTW, who says
there's only one correct translation of a sentence from one language to
another?)
No, actually, I don't know exactly what he means because I wasn't paying
much attention to the beginning of the thread.
>: {neH} doesn't emphasize anything. After a noun it
>: means "only," "only that noun and no other."
>
>By you that's not emphasis?
You want to call that emphasis? Fine. But everyone had better make sure
they don't use one sort of emphasis when they mean another. If I want to
spell out my pronouns for some reason, that doesn't make them the topic of
the sentence. If I want to talk about only one of something, that something
isn't necessarily the topic of the sentence, either. Explicit pronouns and
{neH} do not do the same thing as {-'e'}, which is EXACTLY what it sound
like people are saying when they talk about emphasis.
SuStel
Stardate 99116.2
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Emphasis
- From: "William H. Martin" <whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu>