tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 10 05:24:25 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Prefix and noun agreement (was: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu})

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: Prefix and noun agreement (was: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu})
• Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:23:23 EST

In a message dated 12/9/2007 9:57:07 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> This idea of somehow indicating that a group can be identified as  
> including a first or second person by using an explicit group noun  
> (third person, since explicit nouns tend to be third person, unless  
> they are proper nouns naming someone who happens to be first or  
> second person) and then using a verb prefix that disagrees with that  
> third person... That's not merely an unusual idea. It's just, well,  
> wrong.
> 

The whole discussion seems to hinge on whether ordinary nouns, especially 
animate nouns, have person as an inherent category.  I don't think they do, so 
using e.g. {tlhIngan} as the subject of a verb with a prefix indicating a first 
or second person subject makes good sense to me.  
It's also done in Spanish:  Los mejicanos somos... (We Mexicans are ...).

lay'tel SIvten
   </HTML>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Prefix and noun agreement (was: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu})
    • From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}
• Next by Date: Re: HoqHom Daj
• Previous by thread: rut yIHmey ghom Hoch
• Next by thread: Re: Prefix and noun agreement (was: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu})
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level