tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 16 19:19:04 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Positioning for emphasis
- From: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Positioning for emphasis
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:17:58 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Qov, ja':
>puq'e' yaS qIp has a random noun with unspecified role tossed up at the
>beginning of the sentence.
The role is "topic", which isn't unspecified at all. The question of whether
the subject of {qIp} (which is expressed by the zero pronominal prefix) can
be the same as the topic is what I'm arguing, and I don't see any reason why
it shouldn't be.
>That's somewhat circular. First you postulate that the adverb move is
>actually an object move
Why not? The paragraph on TKD p.180 in which Okrand talks about placement of
adverbs with {-'e'}-marked objects immediately follows a paragraph in which
he discusses placement of adverbs with time stamp headers (the example he
uses is {DaHjaj}). Furthermore, he expressly says that this shift occurs
with {-'e'}-marked objects, and makes no mention of ordinary, non-emphasised
direct objects. That looks like object movement to me. The evidence might be
circumstantial, but I think it's the simplest and the most explicative
interpretation. Otherwise we'd need to formulate a new rule that adverbs may
come after direct objects, but only where the direct object is emphatic,
which seems a little strange to me.
>and then you use your own postulation as evidence that the subject
>can move.
You're right; I did build a postulation upon another postulation here.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Nevertheless, I do think that permitting subject-heading is a logical
consequence of permitting object-heading, as the concepts involved are
essentially identical. To take the {HaqwI''e' DaH yISam} example, if
object-heading is permitted, a more literal translation would be "as for the
surgeon(A), find him(A) now". Here, the header and the direct object are
clearly the same thing, and hence the header is able to serve as an
antecedent to an argument in the main clause. If it can serve as antecedent
to an object pronoun, why not to a subject pronoun, as in {HaqwI''e' DaH
muSam} "as for the surgeon(A), he(A) is looking for me"? The only reason I
can think of for why not is the presence of the pronoun {'e'}, which may
only serve as an object. It might make sense for an {-'e'}-marked noun to be
only capable of serving as antecedent of a direct object if the suffix
{-'e'} and the pronoun {'e'} are related.
Of course, if you conclude that {HaqwI''e' DaH yISam} is rather an example
of adverb movement, then naturally the argument for {-'e'}-object-heading,
and hence the case for {-'e'}-subject-heading, collapses. Also, although the
paragraph was primarily about adverb placement, not the {-'e'} suffix, I
suppose the fact that Okrand also didn't mention subjects in the paragraph
on {-'e'}-object-heading may be pertinent. The problem is that the canon is
very thin on the ground; the only example I know of of an emphasised subject
that isn't in a copular sentence is {lujpu' jIH'e'} "I have failed" from
TKD, which is quite bizarre in more than one way anyway.
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
_________________________________________________________________
Advertisement: Need a Hand? Use Yellow.com.au
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fadsfac%2Enet%2Flink%2Easp%3Fcc%3DPAS075%2E5683%2E0%26clk%3D1%26creativeID%3D73753&_t=765559690&_r=Hotmail_email_tagline_sept07&_m=EXT