tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 08 09:52:58 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: emphasis
As somewhat a "beginner":
Actually... I like the sounds of having two in the case you cited. It
certainly seem to work to me. It "sounds" and "feels" ok. And I'm not
aware of any rules invalidating it, but then again there are probably a
lot of them I'm not familiar with.
rItlhmoQSuvwI'
Stardate 2517.8
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Quvar valer [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 06:56
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: KLBC: emphasis
>
>
> I'm not really a KLB, but I could not answer to this question
> somebody asked me at the qepHom last
> weekend.
>
> it's about noun suffix {-'e'}.
>
> 1. thought:
> TKD (p.29) says "This suffix emphasizes that the noun to
> which it is attached is the topic of the
> sentence"
> {De''e' vItlhapnISpu'} "I needed to get the INFORMATION"
> (not something else)
>
> 2. thought:
> About "To Be-constructions" TKD (p.68) says
> "If the subject is a noun, it follows the third-person
> pronoun and takes the -'e' topic suffix."
>
> {puqpu' chaH qamapu''e'} "The prisoners are children."
>
> ----> Resulting question:
> Can we make a combination of those two rules?
> i.e. have two -'e' suffixes in a sentence.
> Example:
> {puqpu''e' chaH qamapu''e'}
> "The prisoners are CHILDREN."
>
> talking like TKD, this is translated as:
> "As for the prisoners, they are children (and not something else)."
>
> My opinion:
> I don't know. On the one hand, thought #1 looks like you
> can only emphasize one noun, since there can
> only be one topic in a sentence, don't it? On the other
> hand, thought #2 tells me that any "to-be"- sentence needs
> the -'e' at the end.
>
> Quvar.
>