tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 16 22:28:34 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 15:27:00 +1000
- Bcc:
jIjatlhpu':
>Although we have no canon examples of {-'e'}-subject fronting, I don't see
>why this shift in position could occur with objects but not with subjects.
mujang ghunchu'wI', ja':
>You're proposing that the "adverbials can come after a topic-marked
>object" rule is really a "topic-marked objects can come at the front of a
>sentence" rule,
Yes, that's essentially it, especially since on the same page Okrand talks
about the possibility of adverbs coming after other classes of header
(namely, time- and place-stamps).
>and trying to extend that to apply to topic-marked subjects.
I can understand how others would disagree, and Qov has justly pointed out
to me the weakness of arguing a postulation on the basis of another
postulation.
>I see two reasons why such front-shifting wouldn't apply to subjcts:
>1. Subjects come after the verb, not before.
That's true, but then, in TKD it also said that adverbs (except for {neH}
and {jay'}) come before the main OVS sentence unit. On top of that, I view
the sentence {puq'e' yaS qIp} as still having a subject in the main clause
(i.e. in addition to the header), represented by the zero pronominal prefix.
In the plural, I argue it would be {puqpu''e' yaS luqIp}. {puq'e'} is
additional, emphasised subject information. In truth, it isn't the
grammatical subject. It's the semantic subject, but not the grammatical one.
Aside from which, your argument is slightly circular. It's tautological to
suggest that subjects wouldn't be fronted because they come after the verb,
unless you're suggesting that the verb represents a major syntactic division
in the sentence across which words can't move - that there's a preverbal, a
verbal, and a postverbal (= subject) unit in Klingon grammar, through which
words don't migrate. Is that what you mean?
>2. We don't even know that such front-shifting does apply to objects.
>Your proposal is the first time I've heard it suggested.
That's very surprising. I could have sworn I'd heard it on the list... In
any case, I still believe that this explanation better reconciles the
position of the body of TKD with the contradictory position of the addendum
on the position of adverbs. But it's only a proposal, and I won't force it
on anyone.
Out of interest, what are people's views on said proposal (forgetting
subject-fronting for a moment)? If there's counter-canon, or if people
disagree, I'd like to hear thoughts.
jIja'taH:
>No Klingon would ever read it like that, whether punctuated or not,
>because of the rule prohibiting type 5 suffixes on the first noun of a
>noun-noun construction.
mujangtaH ghunchu'wI', ja':
>I have some experience actually speaking Klingon with people in casual
>conversation, and grammatical perfection in such situations is
>unimportant.
Duj law' DachIjta' net Honbe'.
>There are certain nongrammatical tendencies that seem to come out with
>some regularity; among them are unintentional dropping of the -chugh
>suffix, putting an aspect suffix on the second verb of a
>sentence-as-object construction or a verb with the -jaj suffix...and
>putting a topic marker on the first noun of a noun-noun.
>I recognize the growing prevalence of people tossing a topic noun at the
>front of a sentence, but I'll continue to be a pedantic curmudgeon about
>insisting that subjects belong at the end.
luq.
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: Search for local singles online at Lavalife
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3Den%5FAU%26a%3D30290&_t=764581033&_r=email_taglines_Search&_m=EXT