tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 02 23:35:07 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: (KLBC) 2 coordinated Type 5 Suffixes
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: (KLBC) 2 coordinated Type 5 Suffixes
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 02:34:53 EST
In a message dated 1/2/2001 9:21:06 PM Central Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
> SuStel's theory was that all nouns in this position are "head nouns" and
> that the Type 5 suffix didn't actually have anything to do with syntax, even
> though Okrand calls them "syntactical markers" in TKD. Instead, SuStel and
> ghunchu'wI' believe quite sincerely that Type 5 suffixes change a noun's
> meaning, not its syntax (it's grammatical function in the sentence). One of
> the ways I tried to argue my point was to point out that conjunctions were
> needed for nouns with the same Type 5 suffix, but they were not needed for
> nouns with different Type 5 suffix.
>
>
In reading TKD, I always got the feeling that type 5 noun suffixes are
syntactical markers. Thus, a noun suffixed by {-Daq} causes the sentence to
take place "at" the place, sometimes with motion "toward" the place.
What I am saying is that I do not see the noun taking on a new feeling, I see
the verb (sentence essential element) being defined as "happening" "at" some
place.
Now, {-vo'} does the same thing. The verb's action "gets propelled from" the
noun's place.
{-vaD} means that the sentence is "for" or "to" someone, datively or
allatively.
{-mo'} means that the sentence occurs "due to" the suffixed noun's meaning.
In short, I have always understood that type 5 noun suffixes affect the
sentence, not just the noun being suffixed. Apart from what TKD says, I look
at these "clauses" (i.e., suffixed nouns often including noun series in a
possessive or combinative manner and/or adjectives) at quasi-adverbials.
While they definitely are not adverbs, they are adverbials. That is, they
affect the "sentence."
Humble opinions, I know. But, that's the way I read it.
peHruS