tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 11 13:04:50 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Deixis and direction
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Deixis and direction
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:04:18 CDT
(first of all, I kept writing {QongDaq} where I meant {QongDaqDaq},
HIvqa' veqlargh, thanks for so subtly pointing it out, SuStel :)
jIjatlh:
> > I'd like to make it more of a question than a challenge, by
> > providing an example. SuStel, would you say that *{qab QongDaq}
> > is possibly (NOT necessarily, I understand that) a grammatical
> > sentence with a meaning like "The bed's location is bad." ?
>
jang SuStel:
> In my less-sophisticated version of analysis, there is nothing which
> explicitly prohibits such a construction. Nothing known, that is. There is
> simply no rule in TKD which says that a noun with a Type 5 suffix cannot be
> a subject.
>
I understand that. I was curious as to what meaning you would assign it,
if encountered.
> As ghunchu'wI' points out, the Type 5 suffix migrates around the
> adjectivally-acting verb. /QongDaq letDaq/ "in the hard bed." Is this
> still a single concept? I don't think so; it doesn't appear to mean
> "in-the-hard-bed" as a single concept. This is, I think, the single best
> reason to continue to think of the Type 5 suffixes as syntactic markers as
> we'd understand that in English in any way. They can change the meaning of
> entire noun phrases.
>
this interpretation might be influenced by the way we write "suffixes"
without a space between them and the noun they follow, while attributive
verbs are spaced. Maybe one reason why only rovers are allowed on attributive
verbs is that they (the attributive verbs) occupy a "suffix-slot" 4.5
(I don't really believe that, but I also don't think it is that
contrived either)
> That said, I still don't see any real difference in grammar between the
> following sentences:
>
> puq QupvaD betleH nob HoD.
> puq Qupmo' betleH nob HoD.
>
neither do I.
> > hmmm, it seems like you dimiss the possibility that this has
> > ANY meaning, including "The origin of the river is hot.",
> > which, I guess, answers my question above with "No"...
>
> Not exactly. I say it probably doesn't have a valid MEANING, but its
> GRAMMAR is not prohibited by the known rules.
>
I was specifically asking for the meaning, I don't want to
argue about whether it's grammatical or not.
> > I'm not sure in how far your so-called "in-ness" or "at-ness"
> > differs from the object's location as in my *{qab QongDaq} above.
>
> I'm not sure how well I can explain that.
>
[...]
> Here's another way to think about it. If you saw /qab QongDaqvo'/ and were
> told that you had to give it a meaning, ignoring whether or not it is
> allowed, what would you come up with? I'd see it as "From-the-bed is bad."
> Whatever that means. /QongDaqvo'/ is not a thing or place like /QongDaqDaq/
> is, and is probably easier to grasp as a single concept.
>
I think I understand. Then would you say the reason {qab QongDaqvo'}
does not have an obvious meaning is similar/related to the reason
{QongDaqvo' qab qach} doesn't have an obvious meaning?
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]