Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e'

["d'Armond Speers" <speersdl@msn.com>]

>lab Holtej 'utlh:
>
>>SuStelvo':
>>
>>>A rose by any other name.  Personally, I see "subject," "object," and
>>>"header" as the cases of Klingon nouns.
>>
>>I don't see these as cases, so much as grammatical roles.  Unless you 
>>subscribe to the theory that (a) all nouns are marked for case, even if 
>>it's not overt; and (b) Klingon is like human languages in this regard, 
>>there's no evidence that Klingon uses case.
>
>i subscribe, i subscribe! :)

To which part?  Both?  I'd object to (b) on the grounds that Klingon is, by 
definition, non-human; we shouldn't adopt (theoretical) principles of human 
languages for Klingon without evidence.  My point was that distinctions like 
"subject" and "object" are grammatical roles.  Their role in the sentence is 
determined by syntax (word order), not morphology (case marking).  
Furthermore, (overt) case marking isn't even an option (though we can talk 
about {-vaD} for indirect objects).

Let me ask it another way.  If you claim a non-overt case system for Klingon 
nouns, what does this buy you?

>tulwI',
>sts.

--Holtej 'utlh


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com