tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 12 22:49:23 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Deixis and direction
jIjatlh:
> << 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. >>
jatlh peHruS:
> The following is a quote from TKD 6.1 Basic sentences:
>
> Any noun in the sentence indicating something other than subject or object
> comes first, before the object noun. Such nouns usually end in a Type 5
noun
> suffix (section 3.3.5.)
Clearly, you haven't been following this discussion.
This says that if it's NOT a subject or object, it goes in front.
This says nothing whatsoever about what happens if it IS a subject or
object.
It says that those nouns which go in front usually end in Type 5 suffixes.
It says nothing about nouns ending with Type 5 suffixes having to go in
front.
There is no known rule prohibiting placing Type 5'd nouns in the subject
position. There is also no known rule prohibiting placing Type 5'd nouns in
the object position.
Now, I'm not saying that all Type 5'd nouns DO appear in the subject
position. I'm saying that Klingon grammarians have no rule that has been
revealed to us that prohibits such placement.
And Type 5'd nouns DO appear in the object position for some verbs: the
verbs of motion.
And there are some Type 5'd nouns that appear in subject and object
positions: nouns ending with /-'e'/. They are not an exception to the rule.
They are simply the Type 5 ending which most commonly may be placed in these
unusual places. Otherwise, they'd be an exception: "You can't put Type 5'd
nouns in the subject or object position, unless that Type 5 ending is
/-'e'/, 'cause /-'e'/ somehow works differently." I disagree with this
statement.
Once more: I'm not arguing that constructions like /qab bIQtIqvo'/ make
sense in Klingon. I'm saying they're not grammatically prohibited.
SuStel
Stardate 531.8