tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 14 11:27:49 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aw: Re: adverbials
tulwI' jang SuStel:
>From: "Stephan Schneider" <[email protected]>
>> >/ram/ is a noun that means "night." /rammo'/ is a noun meaning
>> >"because-of-night." Then, because "because-of-night" isn't likely to be
>the
>> >subject or object of the sentence, the gets dumped into the "header"
>space.
>>
>> this would make me think that there could be one "because of night".
>
>Huh?
i try to answer your question.
if we don't distinguish between a noun and a case-wrapped noun, than
one could think (for example, me) that any noun can be but in a
nounphrase like "a <noun>". for example, "tree" is a noun, and i'm
used to be able to say "a tree". if "because of the night" is a noun,
then i would think that it would be able to say "a because of the
night".
this thread, however, becomes more and more stressing and
hairsplitting, and i regret that.
> > but of course we can say that suffixes don't change the part of
>> speech of a word,
>> but then i ask: what part of speech is a "tulwI'" -
>> a noun or a verb?
>
>/tul/ is a verb. /tulwI'/ is a noun. That's what /-wI'/ is for. /-wI'/
>doesn't make /tul/ a noun, it makes /tulwI'/ a noun.
>
>> >P.S.: /ram/ is a REALLY bad example word . . . .
>>
>> it's always the bad examples that are the best examples, imho.
>
>Umm . . . why?
as i already posted: i didn't understand that you meant that there
are two /ram/s.
tulwI',
sts.