tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 16 13:07:52 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Thinking the sentence structure
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Thinking the sentence structure
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:07:37 CDT
_jatlh_ SuStel:
> /qatlh/ is a "pure" question word. I don't see how it could substitute for
> any other part of the basic sentence.
>
I was thinking of NOUN-mo'
of course it can also stand for a clause with VERB-mo'
but as long as we're just talking about "one-verb-sentences"...
> /chay'/ seems like it could be a substitute for an adverbial. (At least,
> one interpretation of /chay'/ could.) Perhaps it would go into the
> adverbial spot.
>
other interpretations substitute it for a clause or sentence IMO
> nuqDaq wa'leS nIQ wISop? (*? wa'leS nuqDaq nIQ wISop?)
>
> chay' letlhDaq mayIt? (*? letlhDaq chay' mayIt?)
>
> Say! What canon do we have with question words and "noun phrases" (as I am
> calling the category of "oblique" nouns)? I'll find some when I've got my
> resources handy and see what orders they come in.
>
> Questions are icky. Or at least, not simple.
>
bIlugh. chaq mu'tlheghDaq lenglaHbe' chuvmeyvam.
mu'tlhegh wItaghmeH DIlo'chugh, lugh mu'tlhegh
'e' wISov qar'a'? vaj mIwvam wImaSnIS.
> > This raises the question
> > as to whether objects marked with -Daq as in {juHwIjDaq vIghoS} may
> > be followed by adverbials as well: ?{juHwIjDaq QIt vIghoS} and how
> > this "interferes" with your interpretation of how words with suffixes
> > are analyzed.
>
>
> No, no, you're missing the point. Don't think of /juHwIjDaq/ as an object
> /juHwIj/ marked with /-Daq/. Think of /juHwIjDaq/ as the object. That's
> what it's doing.
>
I believe you misunderstood my question.
in {juHwIj'e' QIt vIghoS} also {juHwIj'e'} is the object,
not a "non-object noun phrase", still it is marked with -'e',
which allows the adverbial {QIt} to _follow_ it rather than
precede it. My conjecture is that this is (in no' Hol) "wrong"
but has become accepted over time, because typically nouns
with a type five suffix _precede_ the adverbial.
IF this is what happened, then I guess objects(!) that are
marked with -Daq might _precede_ an adverbial as well,
although it does NOT follow that this is (in modern Hol)
acceptable.
and IF this is what happened, it would give some weight
to the theory that Klingons DO recognize suffixes as such
and DON'T necesserily synthesize them with the root to form
a new "word"
however, this has no bearing on the classification of
"non-object noun phrases" (NONP), as I see it: it doesn't matter
whether there's a suffix involved or not, i.e. there is
indeed no need to seperate "time stamps" from other NONP
that might include a type five noun suffix.
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]