tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 24 03:14:37 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "my name is" (was Re: loy)
- From: Philip Newton <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "my name is" (was Re: loy)
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:13:57 +0100
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dLi162mTTPg/5Tvg2lcTl1wKihZLJ4oP5AEG2/8g6NWImc/dbTCzecTD8VOR5EPQ46s7LBwtcT0+KUz3L2UlDJFFXPK2F4ES1Vh+kNqnP+Mpt7dFLM37GJn/l05QbwFar9aqwRSMXd7Ei601PUEFcU/tD2ljeZ69MCK1PPeVsTY=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
On 1/23/06, QeS 'utlh <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would imagine that, naturally, the two nouns could be
> reversed: {pongwIj 'oH QeS'e'}. I guess it comes back to this given/new
> distinction that Lawrence referred to a couple of weeks back: the new
> information is usually the more emphasised, and so in the copular construct
> the new information should probably be in the subject position, with {-'e'}.
On the other hand, {QeS 'oH pongwIj'e'} always seemed the more natural to me.
I gloss the topic marker sometimes as "as for" -- and in this case,
the two ways of saying it become "As for my name, it's <Kresh>" and
"As for <Kresh>, it's my name".
And since the implied question, to me, is not "What is <Kresh>?" or
"What does <Kresh> refer to?" but rather "What's your name?", an
answer that topicalises {pong} seems appropriate to me.
--
Philip Newton <[email protected]>
HovpoH 5212.33
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}
![[Hol ghojwI']](/pics/level2_big.png "[Hol ghojwI']"){kind=small}