tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 16 17:29:32 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Thinking the sentence structure
How do I get off this mailing list?
----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Thinking the sentence structure
>
> _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]
>