tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 02 06:37:26 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh puq'e'

>At 01:41 02-08-31 +0200, lab tulwI'
>>so my question is:
>>can we assume that every noun in a klingon sentence has a "role"?
>Skipping ALL the definitions and names, this by itself is a really 
>important concept, so I'm going to answer it for the benefit of 
>those other than tulwI'.
>The answer is YES.
>Every noun in a Klingon sentence has a role.  You can't just put a 
>noun in there somewhere because its meaning is relevant.
>The noun can be the object of the verb:  _loD_ vIlegh
>It can be the subject of the verb: yIt _loD_
>It can describe another noun: yIt _tlhIngan_ loD.
>It can function as a timestamp _DaHjaj_ yIt loD
>It can be part of another clause _may'mo'_ yIt loD
>I don't think that will answer tulwI''s question -- I haven't been 
>following closely enough to understand tulwI''s question.  But this 
>might be useful to someone out there lurking.

what means "lurking"?

i want to have names for those roles. when i called them 
"nominative", "accusative" and so on (cases), the idea was not very 
in. so if "roles" are allowed, then we speak of "subject role", 
"object role".
are there any shorter names for "describing another noun role"? 
"genitive" wouldn't be allowed, as this impies case.


Back to archive top level