tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 15 16:18:23 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e'

SuStelvo' tulwI'Daq:

>From: "Stephan Schneider" <>
>>  >qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS.
>>  >You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy.
>>  >"In the galaxy, regarding warriors, you are the most wonderful of all."
>>  so /'e'/ can be a case tag. i wasn't aware of that. i remember that
>>  one said that there can be confusion about focus and topic... i think
>>  now i understand it better: /'e'/ can be either a case tag for a
>>  focus or a topicalizer (that is not a case tag). qar'a'?
>Depends on how you look at it.  In my own view, I see Type 5 noun suffixes
>not as "case tags," but rather purely as having semantic meaning.  Whether
>the word's meaning in the sentence's context is subject, object, or
>"something else" determines where it goes.  Thus, a word like /pemmo'/
>"because of daytime" will virtually never be a subject or object.  The only
>Type 5 suffix whose meaning doesn't usually preclude putting it in subject
>or object position is /-'e'/, which can mean either "focus" or "topic" (and
>I don't like the idea of automatically saying that it is one in one position
>and the other in another position).

what did you mean in brackets? what positions?

>One reason for this interpretation is that it explains the unusual behavior
>of locatives and verbs of motion.  You can say /juHDaq vIghoS/ "I go home"
>and it's perfectly valid.  The /juHDaq/ is the OBJECT of the sentence; it's
>not part of the pre-object soup, the "header."  Okrand has told us that
>several verbs describing motion can work this way.  The simplest way to
>explain this is, in my opinion, to recognize that the so-called "syntactic
>markers" actually only impart semantic meaning, but that the meaning makes
>them show up in the header so often as to make them appear to be syntactic
>markers (/-'e'/ is clearly not exclusively a syntactic marker).  It's the
>MEANING of the word that determines what its "case" is (subject, object, or

you're mixing up 'case' and 'part-of-sentence'. the type-5 suffixes 
don't indicate the part-of-sentence (whether subject, object or 
header). they indicate the _case_ (that's why i would like to call 
them case tags). a locative (a noun with a locative case tag) can be 
the object (part-of-sentence) of a verb, or it can be in the header. 
we could also say that a focus (a noun with a focus case tag) can be 
the subject (part-of-sentence) of a to-be-verb. and so on.
btw, i think case tags carry semantics, as the cases they form are 
linked with the semantics of the verb.

>Please note that my expounding on this topic has previously caused no small
>effect on this list.  I restate it (a) as a possible answer to your
>question, and (b) as an interpretation of what we see in order to arrive at
>grammatical sentences, and to explain WHY they're grammatical.  I do not
>claim any kind of authority over what "is."

has there been a consent on this topic? :)
i would still like to distinguish between cases and 
parts-of-sentence, so i still would like to see /'e'/ as a case tag. 
neither do i claim any authority over all this, of course. :)

>Stardate 2622.9


Back to archive top level