tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 19 16:52:59 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: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:52:54 -0600
>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