tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 27 08:32:24 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Adverb placement (was Re: The topic marker -'e')
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Adverb placement (was Re: The topic marker -'e')
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:30:57 -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=YDj6bMvvvzGN+RBnsUCuhG1yRpGCfe8qdXXViZhRCUU=; b=lPmDCHeLgE7dICgbduh5zUN7vzIAbGkQY8JiD47RW+NRHNrV60GfFlyd33x54YR7uP J/DhjIubqvKcPomiW/QldBEHXn7kw16u80gF87dLmvbq1JXL0koQu4Al/JS6wKYSmirn 3qkVCuJHZ2oliALk52UY3qbCRtveLUyHk9S/w=
- 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=e+wZeq0acPcTI2nF7MLYPq6opOgI19RknsHypXj1d3T4vd2TAu4tBg81/hODFwphFJ tZPowKrOpbuRgUA+3/0lkugHNIFkQ6qR53SMATKhMB+fGUCgpy5IzekhkOonXdwnt+Oc MHU9EHMmgOfrHMBdiFkizjFFGIx+nDaq6WGYs=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 06:19, ghunchu'wI' <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 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.
See previous email. Embedded does not mean what you think it means.
> 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.
This is the last time I will repsond to one of your emails. Your
understanding of how language works is pathetic. Despite this, you
talk to others (especially me) as if we were children, as if you had
some sort of special and perfect knowledge which you would lead us to
with snide comments and disrespect. You can think my Klingon is wrong
or bad or incorrect. Frankly, I don't give a damn. Hell, that might
well be a compliment.
> 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.
Okrand says very clearly that the second verb cannot take aspect suffixes.