tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 11 08:31:39 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: cheng Sa' may'bom bom mu' cha'DIch
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: cheng Sa' may'bom bom mu' cha'DIch
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:27:35 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
I just want to clarify the term "ungrammatical". It means
that the grammar is broken. That is syntax. The Rules.
A separate category of meaning is symantics. That has to do
with the meaning, not the grammar. It has to do with what
words mean and not the rules of grammar.
"I is good," is ungrammatical, but it is symantically
understandable.
"I intersect declarations," is grammatically correct, but
symantically meaningless. The meaning of the verb
"intersect" does not have "declarations" as a valid direct
object, especially when "I" is the subject.
In all cases below, {jIbIv} is grammatically correct,
though in one case it makes sense (symantics) and in the
other case it doesn't (again, symantics).
Meanwhile, I'm seeing two people having a discussion, but
you are not talking about the same thing.
One person asks whether or not you can say both {jIbIv} and
{vIbIv} and be correct. The other is missing the question
and instead answering a question about what is an
appropriate direct object of the action {bIv}.
My vote:
Yes, your third option is correct. You can use a direct
object or not with {bIv}. If you use a direct object, that
object should be some sort of rule. Even if you imply a
direct object, it has to be some sort of rule. This kind of
action of breaking is the kind that affects rules and not
physical things, unless breaking things is against the
rules.
Does this help?
charghwI'
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 01:05:17 EST [email protected]
wrote:
>
> jatlh DujHoD:
> >So you're saying that (using my example again) {jIbIv} would be
> ungrammatical
> >because {bIv} *must* be transitive?
>
> I'm sorry, i'm not sure I know exactly what transitive is and i threw out my
> dictionary when i moved. As for the example being ungrammitical, it really
> depends on the sentence it's used in. Ex. if you were to say, "I need to
> break bottles" it would be ungrammitical to use jIbIvnIS. if you were to
> say "I need to break the law" then it would be appropriate to use jIbIvnIS.
> the word <bIv> is simply peticular to breaking rules and the sort.
>
> -veS joH