tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 29 06:42:18 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: it; SIS

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: it; SIS
• Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:41:36 -0500
• References: <[email protected]>

From: <[email protected]>
> the way i think of "it" in sentences like these is that it is (!) strictly
a
> dummy subject for the verb when it would otherwise have none.  it has no
> reference at all, and doesn't mean anything.  it's role is strictly to
fill the
> required grammar slot of subject.  klingon doesn't do this, of course,
since its
> verbs do not require explicit subjects.  the subject of "SIS" (the sky?)
may
> be so self-evident that it is unnecessary in ordinary use.

If it's so self-evident, then what is it?  :)

We understand how Klingons use the word, without understanding why they use
it that way.

SuStel
Stardate 4242.6

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: it; SIS
    • From: Lieven L. Litaer <[email protected]>
  • Re: it; SIS
    • From: "qe'San \(Jon Brown\)" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • it; SIS
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: Using object prefixes with "intransitive" verbs
• Next by Date: Re: tetlhvamDaq Hoch nuvpu' /everyone on this list
• Previous by thread: it; SIS
• Next by thread: Re: it; SIS
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level