tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 18 07:44:49 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq(pu'/mey)'e'
From: "Stephan Schneider" <email@example.com>
> btw: the subject of this message is /tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh
> puq'e'/, wouldn't there have to a /-pu'/ (or a /-mey/) after /puq/?
No. The plural marker is almost always optional. The prefix /lu-/ on the
verb makes it explicit that we're talking about more than one /puq/.
> i'd simply like to interpret that a focus is some sort of case and
> that a topic is just... somehow like the definite article "the", or
> "the one which". the latter doesn't mean any case. and after all, a
> case doesn't immediatly determine the part-of-sentence. for example,
> a locative, as we have learned, can be the object of a verb like
> anyway, in tkd there is no distinction between focus and topic, as
> far is i remember.
Okrand called /-'e'/ a topic marker, and his examples demonstrate focus, not
topic. He has used /-'e'/ as topic elsewhere, and the "to be" constructions
can be interpreted as using topic.
> >No, but I may not be using the same terminology as you. The word "case"
> >undefined for Klingon as far as the stuff Okrand has given us.
> the same goes for "header". there is no "header" in tkd but you all
> use this word, because you saw the _ovs-structure_, and you saw that
> there is a _sentence_, and that often there is something that is
> part-of-sentence but not part of the ovs-structure, and you called
> that "header". that's a good motivation, i think. we need names.
Yes, but Okrand makes it clear that there is a place before the OVS part
that contains other words. It's not at all clear whether Klingon has case,
on what level it would operate, and if it's a useful distinction.
> /juHwIjDaq vIghoS/ - "i'm going home."
> /juHwIj vIlegh/ - "i see my home."
> in the first sentence /juHwIjDaq/ is the object of /vIghoS/.
> /juHwIjDaq/, however, is a locative.
"However"? There is no however about it. /juHwIjDaq/ is a locative noun.
It's always a locative noun, whether it's in a sentence or not. If case is
the relation of nouns (and other words) to the formation of a sentence, and
/juHwIjDaq/ is a locative noun regardless of whether it's in a sentence or
not, then "locative" doesn't really appear to be a noun case, does it?
> in the second sentence /juHwIj/ is the object of /vIlegh/. /juHwIj/,
> however, is a ... how do you call it? "accusative"?
I call it a noun. In that sentence I call it an object. You might try to
apply the word "accusative" to it, but why do this when you can call it an
object? The grammar of your two sentences is exactly the same.
These two sentences mean exactly the same thing. How would case apply here?
> so if there are locative nouns and reason nouns, what is the
> difference between them? what determine the words "locative" and
> "reason" in the terms "locative noun" and "reason noun". how do you
> call this?
Type 5 noun suffixes.
> >We'd need an actual Klingon linguist, or at least a report from Marc
> >to agree on something. Until then, everybody has his own pet theories.
> why do we need to wait for an authority before we come to a consent?
> when MO is willing to give us a more detailed grammar description,
> then we can still abandon our consent.
You try getting everyone on this list to agree with a point of grammar
without direct evidence from Marc Okrand, and then ask your question again.