tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 27 08:16:38 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: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:15:12 -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=YQyMdCrcUtzIU8Kruq98x16XxzHgn2l0ZJF3xjzVTH8=; b=FRIz9EtHmm/7LuJ0s0Abe8doBKiQNNFzqIAeJnM8L3r+4q4vRr5ZgdMJo7x2RmxRWh fiX1jtnNKyglwMzLikjP/6PAeprsJNKs+ToPMBozWKC0MYX6QSN9qLW8yzT3vUvuemMB HO4lAMHwJC/zOtmkVdcdLm/Ad3zku9Vb9fvHE=
- 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=eXst4LEmUw5+TZJoaRQIbTr/R7J5mJhwNWOIfgAcdHtiMBI+hNmzoQ4YqoyEQ/nAzN KZ2vCQ3joHahIwAUyF6l9FdfSVBz0nUPnlLnzXEzFadUHZ1ICxF0rdTWfWYIFAcVJQyG hiV7vpJsdHwVOdAo5Ws7rXukZ98q4x7bjn/PU=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
But (I think; my German ain't great) "ein Messer für ihn" is fine; it
doesn't need a verb to be correct.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 00:55, André Müller <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>