tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 26 16:51:09 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: The topic marker -'e'

Christopher Doty (

But I disagree. A noun with -vaD followed by a another noun is never a single noun phrase, and I don't think any of the cases where I used it could it be construed as such. Because in a n-n phrase, the first noun can't have any suffixes....
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
David Trimboli wrote:

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