tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 26 11:15:47 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:
> This is more what I meant.  I don't mean to imply that y'all say down
> and decided new stuff, but when a language starts being used and
> grammar is missing, speakers come to a consensus without realizing it
> or thinking about it.  Someone starts using -vaD in a certain way, and
> that person is a respect speaker, so others assume he is right, and
> start using is the same way....  And so it goes...

This is certainly true. However, we all have different tolerances and 
understandings of this sort of thing. I am open to most new 
enlightenment, though I always strongly resist any ideas that are 
clearly borne of Okrand making a mistake because something works a 
certain way in English. This is where the prefix trick came from, which 
only recently was explained to me in a way that has let me come to terms 
with it. The idea of {N1-vaD N2} being a legitimate noun phrase (or any 
N1-Type5 N2) really bothers me. Other people have different tolerances 
for these things. I like the idea of using {N-'e'} as a standalone (not 
subject or object) topic; some people strongly disagree that this is 
valid, but they like the idea of using any {N1-Type5 N2} as a noun 
phrase. Each of us has a little evidence on our side, but not enough to 
make everyone confident that we've got it nailed. This wiggle-room is 
where all our arguments take place, and depends primarily on who's doing 
the arguing.

tlhIngan Hol MUSH

Back to archive top level