tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 27 06:19:59 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Adverb placement (was Re: The topic marker -'e')

ghunchu'wI' (qunchuy@alcaco.net)



On Nov 26, 2009, at 11:49 PM, Christopher Doty wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:56, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>  
> wrote:
>> ...I would explain it this way:
>>    reH [DIvI' Duj vISuv] vIneH
>
> But this isn't the same thing.  If this is the structure, <reH> is
> only modifying <vIneH>, and would read something like "I am always
> wanting; I fight Federation starships."

You lost the object of {neH} that its prefix {vI-} specifies.   
Correcting for that, a better reading is "I fight a Federation  
starship; I always want it."  Because {neH} with a sentence as its  
object doesn't use an explicit {'e'}, the "it" can be (and usually  
should be) translated as "that".

>> Even then, it's not literally doing what TKD says. TKD explains that
>> it's two sentences next to each other, not one sentence inside  
>> another.
>
> I don't find anywhere that it says this.

TKD section 6.2.5 is consistent in referring to the Sentence as  
Object construction as two sentences, repeating it in nearly every  
paragraph.  There is one passage referring to the entire construction  
as a "complex sentence", but that description also applies to  
otherwise independent sentences joined by conjunctions, so I don't  
believe it implies that the SAO is one sentence contained in a second.

>> As another illustration, it would be perfectly reasonable to  
>> punctuate
>> my sentence thusly:
>>
>>    jIQongchoH. DaH 'e' vIHech.
>
> I don't think this is quite true, though.

Let's set this point aside and revisit it after you've reread TKD  
pages 65-66.  Try to read it as if for the first time, without the  
intent of reinforcing your present understanding.

> I'm also a little leery about this "DaH 'e' vIHech" business because
> of this no aspect thing.  If the second verb has no aspect, it is
> neutral to time, as Okrand indicates, then I'm not sure it's okay to
> put in an adverbial to indicate something about time.

I think Okrand's explanation is the other way around.  He didn't say  
that the second sentence can't have an aspect suffix *because* the  
construction requires it to be neutral for time.  He pointed out that  
(in that specific example) {vIlegh} is neutral to time because it  
lacks an aspect suffix, so its translation isn't constrained to refer  
to a particular time.

-- ghunchu'wI'






Back to archive top level