tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 12 17:26:03 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Headers. Yet again.

From: "Dr. Jeremy DM Cowan" <>
> From: SuStel
> >Not all nouns with Type 5 suffixes are something
> >other than subject or object
> peHruS stated from the beginning that -'e' was an exception in this
> discussion.  If you now mean to re-include -'e', I agree whole
> heartedly.  If we continue to exclude -'e', then I am a little perplexed
> by your statement.  I can see that the statement from TKD leaves a
> theoretical possibility for non-'e' type 5 suffixes to be used as
> subject or object, but I don't see any practical possibility of doing
> so.  It seems to me that you are arguing that we not discount the
> impossible.  I'm perfectly happy discounting the impossible.  Or perhaps
> I am limited by my small and overtaxed brain.  Could you please provide
> an example of a non-'e' type 5 suffix being used as something that is
> "not other than subject or object."

bIQtIqDaq vIjaH.

This has a different meaning than

bIQtIqDaq jIjaH.

In the first case, it means "I go to the river."  The second means "I go in
the river, I travel in the river."  (HolQeD Vol. 7 No. 4 p. 8)  In the first
sentence /bIQtIqDaq/ is the object of the verb.  In the second it is not.

Yes, I'm mostly (but not entirely, as demonstrated above) talking about a
theoretical possibility rather than a practical one, so when using the
language in a practical way, feel free not to worry about it.  But when
talking theoretically, or when telling someone "This is why things are the
way they are," is it really fair to simply tell just enough to make it work?
Do we not want to understand the concepts?  If you take the time to ponder
the idea, then the exceptions of the "verbs of motion" do not seem quite so
surprising and out of kilter with the rest of the language.  If it's a
property of the VERB that tells whether objects (or subjects) with Type 5
noun suffixes can be used, rather than a blanket restriction imposed by the
grammar, then the verbs of motion make perfect sense: they are the verbs
whose allowed objects include nouns with /-Daq/ or /-vo'/ on them, and no
rules have been broken.

Stardate 2447.5

Back to archive top level