tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 26 20:18:11 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
Christopher Doty (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- From: Christopher Doty <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:15:45 -0800
- 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 :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=p+U1r49E5zS6IdQsMCqNY5QaMSTGcLCX/dTQDALYZ9Y=; b=oFaEHkQNpU3c9X1JuUWyUYBXIftGYld8T66pSfX0c611xPkNSzqxElhG0Pmk9WwEhi W207Rs0GWJ3KhGH3oAIezsy1T0Pa2sBfBLkHsn1GsaFj7xFvFu6Hc+4F3m8umyz5m612 DjjA/2tzaZwAXKSQnysd5RyRsw3SmWR2y9TRU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=DdivPqEZGhF0suTb6AOzLrSlGWjCCl5d5ORo5LmmKgDnJoqUau/0jhRsEVXf9Bj665 +VPF2s2W88ySNHHeV+ZPyuPx47UKbzQ9DOPcmi7dK88lZWPaGeRpxaDhyQz6TbmMCs65 ws3HxuLhSGo0FKUyrQ8A7irAxMiVyZJPe6bJU=
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <4B0F3602.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Christopher Doty wrote:
>>> It's not, e.g., 'a for-him knife', it's 'a knife for him.'
>> What's the difference?
>> tlhIngan Hol MUSH
> Mark J. Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>