tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 08 20:23:43 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Expelling Ambiguity
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 1:04 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Expelling Ambiguity
>
>
> From: "Marc Ruehlaender" <[email protected]>
>
> > talking about ambiguities in
> >
> > jajvetlh quv'e' jIHvaD bIjatlh
> >
> > why shouldn't the "topic" header noun precede the "time stamp"
> > header noun, such as
> >
> > quv'e' jajvetlh jIHvaD bIjatlh
> >
> > this clearly elimintaes the possibility of {quv} (or {batlh}
> > for that matter) being a modifier of (being modified by) {jaj}.
...
> batlh'e' jajvetlh jIHvaD bIjatlh
>
> There is little chance of mistaking the /jajvetlh/ and /jIHvaD/ as being a
> noun-noun construction ("for that day's me" doesn't make much sense).
Even if the words made sense in the reversed order, since you can't put a
Type 5 noun suffix on the first noun of a noun-noun possessive construction,
either {batlh} is the topic or there's been either a misspelling or grammar
rule broken. The only grammatically legal explanation is that {batlh} is a
noun and is the topic of the sentence.
Meanwhile, it remains ambiguous as to whether or not there is a direct
quotation, and if so, what are its boundaries:
As for honor, you spoke to me that day.
That day, you said to me, "As for honor,"
You said to me, "As for honor, that day,"
You said, "As for honor, that day, for me,"
> I feel certain that the position of a time reference at the beginning of a
> sentence is mentioned by Okrand somewhere, but I don't have my
> books with me
> when I'm at work! Does anyone know what the source is?
While I don't remember the source, I do remember the general sense that it
was resolved as you describe it.
> SuStel
> Stardate 1349.0