tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 15 14:43:46 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Aw: Re: adverbials

From: "Stephan Schneider" <>
> if "because of the night" was a normal noun like "night" then i could
> say "that because of the night" just like "that night"; but i can't.
> i can only say "because of that night", because "because" wrappes the
> noun-phrase "night" and "that night", but "because of the night" and
> "because of that night" are no noun phrases. they are wrapped
> noun-phrases. it would be usefull to distinguish between those
> things, don't you think?
> <precog>
> i know that we can't say *"rammo'vetlh" because "mo'" is type 5 and
> "vetlh" is type 4, but _the reason for that_ is that "vetlh" wrapps a
> noun-phrase and returns a noun-phrase. and "mo'" wrapps a noun-phrase
> and returns an "adverbial", i'd say. anyway, i returns something
> different than a noun-phrase. so */mo'vetlh/ is impossible. i just
> would like to describe the language without using terms like "type
> four", "type five", but with terms like "noun-phrase-wrapper", which
> are more plastic, don't you think?
> </pregog>

*shrug*  I certainly don't want to!  I don't think it helps at all.

You can't say */mejpa'Ha'/ even though I sure would like to.  You can't say
*/jatlhta'chu'/ even though people get Type 6 and 7 backward all the time.
There are lots of things that you can conceive of that just don't happen.

*/pemmo'vetlh/ is also something you just can't say, and it's no more
surprising than those verbs I mentioned above.

Beyond that, I really don't know what you're driving at.  You seem to just
want to invent new terminology, but I'm not sure why.

Stardate 2622.4

Back to archive top level