tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 26 16:17:22 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: The topic marker -'e'

Steven Lytle (lytlesw@gmail.com)



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 <david@trimboli.name> 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
>
>
>
>






Back to archive top level