tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 02 15:13:22 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Numbers with pronouns
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Numbers with pronouns
- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:12:10 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UWBIbwHrNgh2gY8BCD8yJbOV8icukUGVzfWAzQevHc8=; b=CA3zyFPeYwhzISbOimF7qfQB2s5ynKTBsEDqHDOgsqGRcx5czc4lnpsf0VDNWd42+r LcnWr6itV8E4aHlAWhrzJ//0tG9DPhTdK1aT74CR7QsLwOUobu2GIorscugoWw7ZNe/e H18UK70d8DPl/6HjniS5rcviNdFlzfGg/THng=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=C9K+tso+yk0wjKSQ9eKYiSXa0MXBkwx9CtDquMmvCgRulj+O3onjNFehvG6q5AePjo VtrhcCUAYz9rVzFaB3FXdJAGsBtgaDjW5bGzHt4nD7tp4qozeId+cbZi4RqQmx5r3GM2 Af4aC7daeSx8AMPN6QxfQ1o9HMQYSWd83rfig=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 13:47, Mark J. Reed <[email protected]> wrote:
> Funny, maybe, but not accurate. Many human langauges share this lack
> of a copula in some subset of sentences that would use one in English;
> the Russian present tense is a well-known example: "Ya russkij" = "I
> (am a) Russian." I don't think it would be a good idea to tell the
> Russians that they're all talking like Tarzan. :)
>
> When putting the same sentence in the past, the Russian verb appears:
> "Ya byl Russkij" = "I was (a) Russian". Since there's something you
> can point to and say "that's missing in the present tense", IMO, the
> Russian example is closer to Tarzan-speak than the Klingon.
>
> The fact that to put the sentence into the perfective aspect in
> Klingon you say {tlhIngan jIHpu'} implies to me that there's nothing
> missing, no element that you could say was being left out as Tarzan
> leaves out his "to be"s. That sentence a verb: {jIH}.
Bravo! My response to this would have been less diplomatic. Glad you
beat me to it.
> The word {jIH} may not be categorized as a verb in Klingon
> dictionaries, but parts of speech are largely artificial anyway; Latin
> grammarians considered nouns and adjectives to be the same category.
> What's important is that it's functioning as a verb syntactically.
Well, parts of speech can be artificial, but you can also build your
word categories from the syntactic evidence. Regardless, the label
given to a word in a dictionary is hardly the end-all be-all of word
classes. We know, for example, that Klingons clearly distinguish
verbs of quality from other verbs, but these aren't so-labeled in the
dictionary.