tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 25 16:53:58 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:52:26 -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=d8I4kGs1W68SQdElVnpMYOUC8HALk2hl0aaLGo/+yM8=; b=rOcQyzAinzrlTKESNhjp0VmAKuI6vgONH9a3bY+RMZMjx9KRdQQkGJ6kS4FSCTTPOV wSWTLmH+ea+XgPwpMmAj8HDZ6wIxURKGti/E6Zc7jjZvlPpn5mxppesXA07yyRMZ+qoB PnFA7fKBmcxZvFlqLwNvYzXMdiNI5GODBfSA0=
- 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=vK+usUs4JqhogyhpOJSUDXQfieZ3dvrOQhaHLKo+yd/xXDcfHwhK/UJg/pSRNvapvJ FD41LlJJQNnVavNI7SgntT0Rmqwjky9dmd1eQP8wZg7twDaTU0FwEY14E+gBnno+gWzt 5xVhKevuaphq2Njpnxl9NBudzm9jW9dJ3NBz0=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
> I don't think I've ever seen that example.
It was one that Voragh sent round earlier. It's the most obvious one,
but there are several in there which are also quite similar.
> As I mentioned before, there are several examples of noun–noun
> constructions with {-vaD} on the first noun. I believe they all occur in
> isolated noun phrases (that is, not in verbal clauses). The rules tell
> us this is not allowed, but there they are. They *are* noun-nouns.
*Why* are they noun-nouns? I see nothing in TKD that says that any
two nouns next to each other are always and only in a N-N
relationship. In <yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'>, you wouldn't say that the
two nouns are in a N-N construction, I assume.
It seems to me, based on the rule that you can't have suffixes on the
first noun, your reasoning is backwards here. If you see "N-vaD N,"
those nouns CANNOT be in a N-N construction, because it would be
ungrammatical, so they must be considered something else (two nouns
that just happened to end up next to each other).
> The BoP poster, plus this one, have enough of them that I can't complain
> *too* strongly if someone uses them, but as you now see, they will be
> really ambiguous if you try to use them: are they modifying the object
> or the verb? Personally, I will not use them without confirmation from
> Okrand.
I just don't see this as ambiguous. As I outlined above, "N-vaD N"
cannot be ambiguous, because it can't be a N-N construction.
If you translate it straight across into English, you get "A
dishonorable battle is a battle for tribbles." Now, I'm willing to
acknowledge that I've basically just translated a somewhat idiomatic
construction into Klingon, and one might have objects for that reason,
but I still don't see
> I am also convinced that Okrand simply forgot that the rules in TKD
> forbid this sort of thing.
Can you tell me what rule this is? I'm still not following. I know
that there is a rule that suffixes can't go on the first noun in a N-N
construction, but I haven't seen a rule that says all noun-noun
sequences are automatically noun-noun constructions...