tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 16 19:19:04 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Positioning for emphasis

QeS 'utlh ([email protected])



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






Back to archive top level