Re: Headers. Yet again.

["Will Martin 6863" <willm@cstone.net>]

I answered this once and my web-based mailer timed me out and ditched the 
response. wejpuH.

> From: <cheesbro@rpa.net>
...
>> If MO someday does somehow make a "meaningful" sentence with a type 5
> (except -
>> 'e') on a subject or object, then fine.
> 
> He has.  The verbs of motion.  Those have Type 5'd nouns as the object.
> 
> If your response to this is "But they're exceptions!" then I'd say that
> any other sentence that Okrand comes up with that might do this sort of
> thing will also be called an exception, and ignored.  As ghunchu'wI'
> has pointed out very well, we have lots of these so-called exceptions. 
> Maybe it's not that simple.

We have two well-known, well-defined exceptions. You apparently 
think "real" rules don't have exceptions. In that case, the rule about OVS 
word order isn't real because of verbs with {-jaj} and comparatives. The 
rule about adverb placement isn't a real rule because of the adverbs {neH} 
and {jay'}, and SAO is not a rule because of the verb {neH} and verbs of 
speech. Each of these Okrandian rules have two well-known, well-defined 
exceptions. I'm sure there's more. These are the ones that casually come to 
mind.

> Let's also note something here (and bear with me, I'm working from
> memory right now): in the interview with Okrand in which he explains
> the verbs of motion, he doesn't say they're exceptions to any rule.  He
> just explains them, tell us how to use them.  He didn't comment on WHY
> they're used that way, and he didn't say they're exceptions.
> 
> They are EXCEPTIONAL in that they're the only (known) verbs which can
> take actual locative nouns as objects, but they're not an exception to
> the grammar.  As I see it.  They're an exception to NORMAL USAGE, but
> not to grammar.
> 
>>  If it's allowed then we can easily
>> say "...the ship in which I fled".
> 
> Hmm.  Could you demonstrate this?  It eludes me.

*ghoS DujDaq jIHaw'bogh.*

Okrand has allowed a head noun as subject or object of a relative clause 
acting as a locative in the main clause. It can have {-Daq} on it from its 
grammatical function within the main clause, though it has to be subject or 
object of the relative clause.

Meanwhile, it apparently can't be a locative for the relative clause and be 
the head noun of that same relative clause. If it could, then it could be 
subject of the main clause while carrying a locative suffix because of its 
role in the relative clause (as illustrated above).

Since you have no problem with locatives as subject, since it is not 
explicitly against the rules, you should accept the example above, even 
though I'm pretty sure everyone else here would reject it as strange, if 
not gibberish.

[I've snipped a few lines I already responded to in another message. 
Honest, I didn't do this to try to gain some advantage in the argument. I'm 
just trying to reduce the redundancy a little.]

> SuStel
> Stardate 2482.9

charghwI'