tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 26 18:12:45 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: "Christopher Doty" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:10:12 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :reply-to:subject:in-reply-to:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type; bh=qHiDv0xEzEa2UoWPlQyM6kEurmt8c9Z6HNQgAXHA7UE=; b=A0z2Kzq1y67ZhgP3f33Om5Sa35+HBbRae6Ca++uQ4XCvtciwwK05EUecLmcPgy7eRF ZDkjJJt4sRB1SZK6mBnw7bHgnR+x0LSQmhw0IJHChnV1qVxKZPfQx9j+RFi7M2/tDoJ8 bmnG7iS7mzSlSHt1RlwLgZAjxBHRfu8g1Kh6A=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:reply-to:subject:in-reply-to:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=D/+fLgeL0yiFdTksqvdlPxddeepxRvzjbQ7oO9bNogYBh3ynJLzUqF/+62PPFp74QB WwfXnegp4bDY7l3REOADAVpySOswbs9gKQrkiUk/2A3dPfOZn+99dgzb4sYoUfYd3Jx4 YGXSAog3ouwdXbM+jWMOW3NHQcu1UJAnUHRH0=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
Gah!! But WHY N1 for the N2 illegal?? This has been my question all along. And this is what you are saying with indirect objects, that one noun is for another noun..... I don't see how this meaning comes from the a verb.
And in these cases, regardless of whether the construction is illegal, the noun with -vaD isn't modifying it... It's not, e.g., 'a for-him knife', it's 'a knife for him.'
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
David Trimboli wrote:
Christopher Doty wrote:
> 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....
Good! So let's hear another sentence using {-vaD} and see where we're
at. And remember, "N1 for the N2" is an illegal noun-noun phrase.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush