tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 22 15:19:58 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e'
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:20:04 +0200 (CEST)
jatlh Holtej:
> Now, in this framework [1], my question is this: why do you want to claim
> that nouns in "subject" and "object" roles can have cases? They're not
> marked for case in the same way that nouns in the header are (by syntactic
> markers). So if they're not marked for case, what is the benefit of claming
> that they do have case?
>
to be fair, we know that at least for some verbs, the noun in the object
"role" can be marked by <-Daq>, and in either this thread or the one(s)
about "adverbials", someone quoted the relative clause example, where
the noun in the subject "role" at least appears to be marked by <-Daq>.
thus, one is free to assume that "syntactic markers" may appear in any
of the three "roles" Subject, Object, and Header, although they in fact
most often appear in Headers if they're not <-'e'>. One can then lump
together <-'e'> with all the other type 5s - as is done in TKD... nothing
much gained, nothing much lost either, so far, IMO.
It gets muddy, though, when one starts to consider whether Subjects
and Objects are filled with nouns without an explicit "syntactic marker";
are these two kinds of null-suffixes, the same, or "no case"?
what about time stamps?
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
ruehli@arcor.de-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Flutkatastrophe! Helfen Sie jetzt! Wählen Sie 0137-7677777
(Arcor-Spendenhotline für die Katastrophenhilfe der Diakonie).
Mit jedem Anruf vom Festnetz aus spenden Sie 98 Cents, welche
über Ihre Telefonrechnung bezahlt werden!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------