tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 26 20:18:11 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 (suomichris@gmail.com)



I'm not sure exactly what I meant there (I blame the relatives again),
but I think it was this.

The difference between "a for him knife" and "a knife for him" in
English is that the first one is ungrammatical: "for him" can't be an
adjective.  We see the same thing in Klingon (from my perspective):
<ghaHvaD taj> is fine ("a knife for him"), but <taj ghaHvaD> is bad: a
noun with -vaD can't go after a noun to modify it, as a verb of
quality/quantity could.  You have to put it before the noun.  But,
it's also expressly not part of a noun-noun construction.

I dunno, I am full of food and feel like we're at a dead end here.  I
still just don't see how <ghaHvaD taj> and the like is a problem, and
I haven't seen anything here that convinces me otherwise.

Do you think <ghaHvaD taj 'oH> is bad as well?

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 18:19, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed.  How can it be read any other way but "for him" modifying
> "knife"?  Certainly that's how you'd diagram the phrase in English: an
> adjectival prepositional phrase modifying "knife".  (With some context
> it could be adverbial instead, modifying something else...)
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:14 PM, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
>> Christopher Doty wrote:
>>> It's not, e.g., 'a for-him knife', it's 'a knife for him.'
>>
>> What's the difference?
>>
>> --
>> SuStel
>> tlhIngan Hol MUSH
>> http://trimboli.name/mush
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark J. Reed <markjreed@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>






Back to archive top level