tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 28 14:06:17 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 14:05:17 -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=CAu1SNwhRsNRvjWSZN+prwPm3J5DlohZi76DykIF4Z3kN/XjpT8xyPzivIzrb0Xr7c2bv2XbEoKWMWCeHjje35fKLtwnuksW7gRoeY0yDGjDcT1rm+/cJQdumTw/NPgAhUt2RMIImTLG7qGOdz6/rRGcUs9zMM+D0lUu28zMT4k=;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
--- David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
> McArdle wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> pab Da'oghpu'. ja' tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom ('ay'
> 6.2.3):
>
> The whole construction (relative clause plus head
> noun), as a
> unit, is used in a sentence as a noun.
> Accordingly, this
> construction follows or precedes the verb of the
> sentence,
> depending on whether it is the subject or object.
This is just as I described it: it explicitly
addresses the use of (relative clause + head noun) as
subject or object only. It doesn't prohibit the use
of relative clauses in other contexts, but it doesn't
endorse it either.
>
> pabvamvaD ram DIp mojaq.
>
But except for {'e'} (and, now that I think of it,
{Daq} for verbs of motion), bearing a type 5 suffix
disqualifies a noun from being either the subject or
the object of a verb. Certainly the noun phrase
*{potlhlaw'bogh meqmeymo'} can be neither object nor
subject.
Maybe I'm making too much of a small gap in the
grammar, but I'd sure love to see some canon to
confirm that you can use relative clauses in ways that
TKD doesn't address.
mI'qey
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/