tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 09 13:39:53 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Aw: Re: Aw: RE: adverbials
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Aw: Re: Aw: RE: adverbials
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 20:39:09 +0200 (CEST)
Stephan Schneider <email@example.com>
> >> so tell me, what do /-Daq/, /-vaD/ and /-mo'/ do, speaking with terms
> >> like "noun", "header" and so on?
> >they tell you what *type* of header the noun they're
> >attached to is in, i.e. location/destination, or
> >beneficiary, or reason
Stephan Schneider <firstname.lastname@example.org
> and how do you call that? beneficiant, maybe? there must be names.
qayajbe'. how do I call what?
the location I call location, the destination I call destination,
the beneficiary I call beneficiary, the reason I call reason.
these *are* names, and good ones, as far as I'm concerned.
> this is interesting. the plural-singular story is a different one,
> though. a noun, being in plurar or singular is a noun (or something
> that we should give a name for). the number of things is irrelevant
> for the rule in the sentence. /-mo'/ for example, changes the rule in
> the sentence, the "part of the sentence".
I'm not a native speaker of Finnish, maybe we should
ask one, whether in Finnish "autossa" ("in a car") is
considered a noun or not ("auto" means "car", thus the
ending -ssa is similar to tlhIngan Hol -Daq), IMO they
also in Russian, I believe the Prepositional case is only
used with prepositions; so is a noun in this case
still considered a noun? I say yes
in German the Genitiv case (although it can be used with
some very few special verbs) usually does not occur in
the "Subject" or "Object" position (there is some looseness
here in the match to Klingon S and O roles); I for one
think Vaters (of the father) and Mutters (of the mother)
are (forms of) nouns.
> i would like to understand all the "rules in a sentence" or "parts of
> sentence" that words can have / correspond to.
I don't know what you mean by "rules in a sentence";
as far as "parts of sentence" goes, I see: Subject, Predicate, Object
and "Header"; words as such don't correspond to any of those.
you're bound to mix up and confuse categories.
a word ISA noun, xor verb, xor other;
a sentence HASA Subject, and Predicate, maybe Object, maybe Header
Predicates are easy, they're expressed either by a verb or by
one of a subset of other.
everything else is merely limited by the inventiveness of the
speaker/writer, because there are ways to build those recursively
> >this makes it look as if you're talking about the same
> >word, however, these are two completely different
> >words which just happen to look the same.
> err... no!!! i can't believe it!
> >we know this, because they belong to different classes,
> >namely nouns (<batlh>_1) and others (<batlh>_2)
> ok, but why one word cannot belong to two classes at the same time?
because then your classification scheme loses its value.
you may come up with your own, but I prefer to stick
to the pretty simple one Okrand gave us.
> >(the two nouns <pa'>_1 "room" and <pa'>_2 "area
> >over there" are another example of homophones)
> /pa'/ is a noun that can occur naked in the body. ("room")
> /pa'/ is a noun that can occur naked in the header. ("there")
any noun can occur naked in the body.
can mean either "the room is bright" or "the area over there is bright".
<pa'>_2 is one of a few nouns that - when used in a location/destination
header do not take the corresponding suffix. It's an exception.
> i know. there is a difference in the descriptions of the language
> (yours and mine), the relation between /naDev/, /pa'/, /ram/ and
> /batlh/ is obvious. it's not necessary to invent one exception rule
> for /naDev/ (i.e. "it doesn't take /-Daq/), one for /batlh/ (i.e.
> "there are two words which just look the same"), one for /ram/ (i.e.
> "there is only one noun, but it can be a time stamp"). isn't that
> obvious? it's always the same rule. *"a noun can become an adverbial
> without adding any suffix - but only a few: /naDev/, /batlh/, /ram/
> and others."
this is like saying "a tool can be used as a saw, but only a few"
you're giving a rule which isn't true for the bigger part of the
set you're trying to apply it to.
> marked by a null-suffix? what is a null-suffix?
a suffix that looks like the null-prefix on verbs with a
third person subject and no object, e.g.
> and what is the sence in saying that /ram/ can occur naked in the
> header, but only when the header is not marked? do you mean /ram/ or
> something that accompanies it?
for all the headers that are marked, like e.g. by -Daq, -vo', -mo',
-vaD, <ram> *cannot* occur naked; time stamps are headers that
are not marked, therefore *any* noun that can go into a time stamp
header occurs there naked.
> > > i see a pattern there.
> >I hope you can see now that the pattern is very superficial
> >as the reasons for the second line to be true is completely
> >different in all three cases
> again i don't understand. the reason to be true would be that the
> noun is bare. so it's always the same reason. please explain.
no. I'm talking about the reason that *allows* the noun to be
there naked/bare. which is completely different in the three cases.
> simply wanted to know whether it is possible to see it that way
> without damaging the language, so to speak.
of course one cannot judge this until you make a mistake
which results from your model of the language being different
than that of the majority of speakers...
Heisse Sounds mit Gewinnchance
News aus der Musikszene und gute Chancen, aktuelle CD's abzuršumen!!!