tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 27 00:57:36 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: Andrà MÃller <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:55:34 +0100
- 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 :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=zbyGgkuG36X6lbszSYiP8+FKWjHUOba1W8t9kHnk+VA=; b=gA87wkGxuQw6iFuVBIEcQkVnzsV1lE8+DgDorYPeH6WLftiUkJNdKYRV/qYSZs1w7E QH9Sa2kVKXQoSg6adxWlE5ZquHROMRZ8364x6CDPF9WfWUvnbyiFj52IdamQa0oY+0dn zXXK/CFGQ//Fx0l8vI1/LMiFskgHeSkdeaFUc=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=tTw9CKUYWvFSm6RDolIqCdqVctMoE+p7+Vot20dc0N2U7hjW9EFuFNg7Q+1CWiNH47 N4wBlLOk3WmtDFOvTH4Te8Mm1J76s+ptVC2VAJXAmlKI9AosOPX7eN8eHp0kuyV1B7zs pcoFI+cLOGtis8fOQ1F3BWD5UlvldvfQdtnUU=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
I thought the problem was the claim that {ghaHvaD taj} is ungrammatical (is
it?), because a noun with {-vaD} cannot work as a mere attribute to another
noun. In the same way, in German "ihm ein Messer" (him a knife) doesn't
work, because it cannot be a noun phrase. It always needs a sentence (and
thus a verb).
This is what I thought was the claim. I dunno if that's really what's going
on.
- André
2009/11/27 Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
> 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 <[email protected]> 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 protected]>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>