tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 11 15:39:33 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aw: Re: Aw: RE: adverbials
tulwI' jang HomDoq:
>Stephan Schneider <[email protected]>
>> >> so tell me, what do /-Daq/, /-vaD/ and /-mo'/ do, speaking with terms
>> >> like "noun", "header" and so on?
>
>Me:
>> >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 <[email protected]
>> 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.
sorry, i didn't see "beneficiary". yes, they are good names. thank
you very much.
> > 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
>probably do
>
>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.
this one is really good! thank you.
a noun in a case is still a noun, in german. hm... for being precise,
should i see nouns with /-Daq/, /-mo'/ and its kin as nouns in cases?
then they are case-nouns. or "casitives". hm... and case-nouns have
the same role in a sentence like a clause.
> > 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.
i should have said only "part of sentence".
>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
ok. but the rules to build this would be very interesting to
formulate for me. seemingly i'm always splitting hairs, as in klingon
it's not necessary to describe the grammar so precisly in order to
speak it correctly (it's sufficient to immitate the canons and to
create a feeling for the language, i guess), but now i'm studying
another language that has a very hairsplitting grammar. it's called
"katanda". it's quite enlightening to me.
> > >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!
> >
>tough
what means "tough"?
> > >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.
and that's always the point in the end. you all prefer to stick to
the okrandian schemes, even though they might not go too deep in
detail. but that's ok. i don't want to question those schemes.
> > >(the two nouns <pa'>_1 "room" and <pa'>_2 "area
>> >over there" are another example of homophones)
>>
>> idem.
>>
>> /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.
>
>wov pa'.
>
>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.
okrand calls it an exception. it's his way to describe it. ok.
> > 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.
hm. but the rule is correct, isn't it?
> > 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.
ok.
> > > > 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.
it has three different okrandian reasons. yes.
> > 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...
i thought you expert klingons can see that immediately. :)
tulwI',
sts.