Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e'

[Stephan Schneider <sts@stephan-schneider.net>]

lab SuStel:

>From: "d'Armond Speers" <speersdl@msn.com>
>>  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.