tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 09 04:34:38 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: The meaning of -moH

ghunchu'wI' (qunchuy@alcaco.net)



On Oct 8, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Terrence Donnelly wrote:

> --- On Thu, 10/8/09, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
>>
>> Overall, I agree with the point: there is some evidence that  
>> syntactic
>> differences exist among verbs, though the evidence is not  
>> conclusive, or
>> even necessarily convincing. If true, verbs may fall into one of  
>> three
>> classes: verbs of action that can take objects; verbs of action that
>> cannot take objects; and verbs of quality, which cannot take objects.

Very well said!  I fully appreciate the restrictive ("that" without  
comma) vs. nonrestrictive ("which" with comma) clauses you used there.

> Really, just two classes: one in which the subject performs the  
> action on an object, and one in which the subject experiences the  
> action or the quality of the verb.

This is a case where the distinction between semantics and syntax can  
be clear.  SuStel is talking about syntax, which is all about how a  
verb fits into a sentence with other words without regard for what  
the subject and object are actually doing or experiencing.  You're  
focusing on semantics, which considers the roles of subject and  
object (and perhaps other entities) in the action or state described  
by the verb.

-- ghunchu'wI'






Back to archive top level