tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 18 05:21:06 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e'
lab SuStel:
>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. 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.
i for one agree to this, SuStel.
tulwI',
sts.