tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 26 16:17:22 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: Steven Lytle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:16:20 -0500
- 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 :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=xBaugY6FJ7YMvgcX2VwZtn70DozSKYWp41Gq2VuSe9Y=; b=UC9U9ORJJsxyCo/hiCoDZldQToNA1y0mp3SXjiU9qI+1gSCdmnCbpKmEgbJYvdxySi oK3Mv8s0lLriEFnfuRwrltz8DIF/shIJZYwakk3hNSB8Z4sORVzfxTUBmQrr1vYpQy2m Nju96IEXjd/yLnHPHg5KYP6sWxkzM2kvGmShA=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=SmlVyrRUI7+6IoAK+YDIEtoQISfX7xqtdTk8xGAJZJyCWj2qBRJU/wtRnYTwrJOJJb 61faQutzt8d092w8wnJeQIYkwJX2+jR7Gtrrd7fPNj8szSURNhSF673dkvN/0hP43es8 Al7nXpMtH+5myL9TpQa2kyYlmk0b0CPIzZM14=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Exactly. But it's still being *called* a noun-noun construction, and it
shouldn't be, because it isn't.
lay'tel SIvten
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:56 PM, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steven Lytle wrote:
> > I think part of the problem in following this conversation is that in
> X-vaD
> > Y, the X-vaD is never (supposed to be) a noun-noun construction, yet it's
> > being called this over and over.
>
> The question is whether {X-vaD Y} is a single noun phrase. If it is, it
> would have to be a noun-noun construction, because there is no other
> kind of noun phrase it could be. But it *can't* be a noun-noun
> construction, because {-vaD} is not allowed on the first noun. So is it
> really a noun phrase at all?
>
> X-vaD Y Verb
>
> Is X the beneficiary of Y or the beneficiary of Verb? TKD says it's the
> beneficiary of Verb.
>
> --
> SuStel
> tlhIngan Hol MUSH
> http://trimboli.name/mush
>
>
>
>