tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 25 17:52:27 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: The topic marker -'e'

David Trimboli ( [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

Christopher Doty wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 17:25, David Trimboli <> wrote:
>>>> 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...
>> If a sequence of nouns is not a noun-noun construction, what is it? What
>> roles do those nouns play in the sentence? The earlier nouns can't be
>> modifying the later nouns, because that's a noun-noun construction.
>> Nouns with syntactic markers or timestamp nouns might sit next to each
>> other, but all of those apply to the *verb*, not the other nouns.
> Ah ha! I finally see what you are saying, I think.  Namely, that in
> <yIHvaD may'>, <yIHvaD> must modify <may'> to get the reading I
> intend, but it also can't if it's in a n-n phrase, because then the
> first word doesn't take a suffix.  Is this the issue you're seeing?
> If so, let me know and I'll address it specifically instead of going
> into detail about all of the other stuff in this email.  I think we've
> been talking past each other a bit if this is the issue.

Yes! That's it exactly.

tlhIngan Hol MUSH

Back to archive top level