tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 28 13:19:46 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: grammar question: verbs used adjectivally
- From: McArdle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: grammar question: verbs used adjectivally
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=TCcj6QPHfS2S9oH6ipbJ6FLZjkIDLBceNXoH+2oVoguQ4w2aBcsHXQrMTDh4jprU99UToZNA2+OiYYVfNAgTXK5CFRZIn+VmBJ0OfS4m6kPYC6F5webXakW7rP7s8XLoJaFOtF9sGQ/nZGQ963ifMntunNw+rsMjXxMf45brCVA=;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
--- David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
> McArdle wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, I also read TKD as prohibiting the
> use
> > of a type 5 suffix on the head noun of a relative
> > clause, so you couldn't express the same idea this
> way
> > either:
> >
> > *{potlhlaw'bogh meqmeymo'} "for reasons that
> seem
> > important"
>
> QIj: qatlh Hat? pabchu' mu'tlheghvam.
>
I don't have my copy of TKD with me, so I can't quote
it directly, but I believe what it says is that the
head noun of a relative clause can be either the
subject or the object of the main verb. The word
"prohibiting" was an exaggeration; it's more accurate
to say that TKD "doesn't [explicitly] allow" nouns
with other functions (which would include nouns with
type 5 suffixes other than {'e'}) to participate in
relative clauses.
In the absence of canon to the contrary (is there
any?), I'm tempted to think that, at the very least,
we have no warrant for putting other type 5 suffixes
on R.C. head nouns.
I'd be thrilled to find out I'm wrong about this.
mI'qey
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433