tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 24 04:24:07 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e'

>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.

i think that there are header nouns with /-'e'/. i think i have seen 
a sentence that had an object and a preceding noun with /-'e'/. or a 
verb can have two objects or the first noun with /-'e'/ belongs to 
the header.

>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?

excellent question. :) (i think that is what i wanted to know all the time.)


Back to archive top level