tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 03:40:55 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'

QeS 'utlh (

jIghItlhpu', jIjatlh:
>I just have a problem with using {SoH 'Iv} as evidence for an
>anomalous word order here.

mujang SuStel, ja':
>I didn't cite it as evidence. I said my analysis could explain {SoH 'Iv}.

You said: "Being such a common phrase, it may indicate an earlier,
more fluid syntax for the pronoun-as-verb.", which implied to me that
you were. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

>Going back to the original thought, I've since had the idea that maybe
>{naDev} could be shifted as an intentional ungrammaticality in order
>to emphasise {naDev}...


mujang SuStel, ja':
>Certainly possible. As I indicated in my original analysis, I did *not*
>have any convincing reason for this.

I'm not arguing with that. I'm just making another suggestion - more
thinking out loud than anything else. It's good to know that someone
else thinks my analysis might be possible, though.

>Note that in my terminology, the final noun of a copula is *not* a
>subject; it is only a topic. The copula has a syntax all its own that is
>not Object-Verb-Subject; it is Copulative-Pronoun-Topic.

So you contend that {-'e'} in the copulative structure is acting in its
topic/comment function (the function in which it ordinarily seems to become a header) rather than in its focus function (in which nouns remain in situ)?

>Yes, I know Okrand calls it a subject in TKD. He misnames a lot of
>things in the dictionary, and the grammar presented is primitive. All
>subtleties are not accounted for.

DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.

QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pab po'wI'
(Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute)

not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

What are you waiting for? Join Lavalife FREE

Back to archive top level