tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 24 23:59:39 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Deixis and direction
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: Deixis and direction
> charghwI':
> >I'm sure are canon examples of this sort of conjunctions,
> >though I don't wish to take the time to find them right now and I doubt
that
> >you doubt this, so I don't feel it is really necessary. Let me know if
you
> >disagree.
>
> SuStel:
> >In fact, what I doubt is that there are any examples of this in canon.
The
> >only examples of multiple "header" nouns in a sentence I can think of are
> >
> >naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?
> >qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS.
> >
> >We simply haven't seen any conjunctions in "header" nouns, whether for
> >similar or dissimilar Type 5'd nouns. If there are some I haven't
> >remembered, I'd appreciate someone pointing them out. Until then, there
is
> >no evidence of this anyway.
>
> There is a canon example of *no* conjunction:
>
> tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq...
An example I illustrated on the 3rd :
Since MO says, "pour (from one thing to another...)" in the meaning for
[qang] and on page 99 of KGT he says, "Usually one will pour (qang) the
drink directly from the bal into the HIvje', ...."
I assumed he follows a similar usuage of "from one place to another"
illustrated in HolQeD 8:4 pg 8.
" tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq Literally this means "from area-sothwestward to
area-northwestward to area eastward"..
>
> I see the whole "conjunction with header nouns" thing pretty much the same
> way SuStel does (surprise!) -- conjoined header nouns are connected
because
> of the idea they express, and not because of any "natural" affinity that
> nouns having the same Type 5 suffix might have.
I also agree.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
qe'San