tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 16 12:20:41 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e'
- From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e'
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:20:25 -0600
>From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
> > I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I'm still confused about
> > this. Can you provide an example of a locative noun as a subject?
>Unless
> > you're thinking something like {Qom Dat} and are counting {Dat} as a
> > locative.
> >
> > Or, you're just saying that the rules don't explicitly prohibit it, and
>it's
> > a logical possibility that one day we may see this, just like we
>eventually
> > saw locatives as the object of verbs of motion like {ghoS}. Not that
>you're
> > advocating its use with what we know today. Is that the point?
>
>That is precisely the point.
qatlho'. DaH jIyajmo' jIQochbe'.
>And analyzing nouns this way eliminates the
>need for /-'e'/ and objects of verbs of motion to be exceptions. It's all
>about what objects and subjects the verb normally uses. /-'e'/ is simply
>more likely than any other Type 5 to appear as subject or object, because
>its meaning is usually compatible with those. X-Daq is not likely to be
>the
>subject for many verbs, because most verbs don't work with a locative
>subject. (We don't know of any that do, but that doesn't prevent the
>possibility.)
>
>And whether or not such a thing actually exists, the interpretation is a
>useful one to understand things like WHY verbs of motion can take locative
>objects, and why /-'e'/ can appear as subject or object. It explains what
>we DO see, while not forcing you to do something which we DON'T see.
>
>SuStel
>Stardate 2624.70
--Holtej 'utlh
Stardate 2624.84
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com