Re: Negation Article

[willm@cstone.net]

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
> 
> willm@cstone.net 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.