tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 15 17:11:48 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Negation Article
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Negation Article
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 21:11:45 GMT
Hi, Daniela (and others)
> Hi, Will
>
> Thank you so much for your corrections. You definitely pointed out some
> sections where I worked rather sloppily.
>
> I couldn't help but comment on a couple of points... That of course
> doesn't mean that the suggestions are somehow less valid.
>
> Thanks a lot
> Daniela
>
> [email protected] schrieb:
> > Some points:
..
> > 5. You say that nouns can carry more than five affixes. Nouns can carry a
> > maximum of five affixes. There are only five noun suffix types and you are
> > not allowed to use two suffixes of the same type on any one noun, so you
> > can have from zero to five affixes (since there are no noun prefixes).
>
> Maybe a stupid question, but aren't there any rovers for nouns?
It's not a stupid question. The answer is, no, there are no rovers for nouns.
> > 6. Your example <<SutlhtaHvIS chaH DIHIvpu'>> has a somewhat controversial
> > use of {-pu'} at the end. If this is an Okrandian example, it may have been
> > written early in the development of the language when {-pu'} meant past
> > tense, but ever since the publication of TKD, it has marked the perfective,
> > which means that while they negotiated, we HAD attacked them. The attack
> > apparently preceeded the continuity of their negotiation. It would be
> > better to drop the {-pu'}.
>
> Okay, that makes sense (but the example is from TKD, p63).
Okrand has explained that some parts of TKD have examples that predate his
decision to eliminate tense and use {-pu'} to mark perfective instead of past
tense.
> > I hope this helps.
>
> Oh, YES!!
Good.