[108502] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] paq'batlh mu'tlhegh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ed Bailey)
Mon Dec 19 10:25:32 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cKi-aptStw-11pvzMp2w1_ta1+VZhR_8KsriPRECME_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:25:28 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============4220396346275079026==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e313c9a4e480544048789
--001a114e313c9a4e480544048789
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 9:07 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
maj. however, how would you explain tkd's {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}, and
> in particular the placement of {naDev} after the {jIHtaHbogh} and not
> before it ?
>
>
My explanation is that to expect the {naDev} to be required to precede
{jIHtaHbogh} is an overgeneralization of the rule that places nouns +
{-Daq} and location nouns like {naDev} before the verb.
In the examples from TKD and paq'batlh, {naDev} does follow the verb, so
there seems to be an exception for a copula, at least for location nouns
occurring with relative clauses. That the same word order occurs again in
paq'batlh argues that it's not a mistake on Okrand's part.
Perhaps this shouldn't be all that surprising. For instance, the OVS rule
does not mean the noun preceding a copula is an object. A copula doesn't
have a object; both nouns have equal grammatical weight, the difference
being that the subject generally uses information the listener already knew
to identify the topic (hence the topic marker), and the noun in the
"object" position is new information for the listener.
~mIp'av
--001a114e313c9a4e480544048789
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 9:07 AM, mayqel qunenoS <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">mihkoun=
@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px =
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p d=
ir=3D"ltr">maj. however, how would you explain tkd's {jIHtaHbogh naDev =
vISovbe'}, and in particular the placement of {naDev} after the {jIHtaH=
bogh} and not before it ?</p><span></span><br></blockquote></div><br></div>=
<div class=3D"gmail_extra">My explanation is that to expect the {naDev} to =
be required to precede {jIHtaHbogh} is an overgeneralization of the rule th=
at places nouns + {-Daq} and location nouns like {naDev} before the verb.<b=
r><br>In the examples from TKD and paq'batlh, {naDev} does follow the v=
erb, so there seems to be an exception for a copula, at least for location =
nouns occurring with relative clauses. That the same word order occurs agai=
n in paq'batlh argues that it's not a mistake on Okrand's part.=
<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Perhaps this shouldn't be all =
that surprising. For instance, the OVS rule does not mean the noun precedin=
g a copula is an object. A copula doesn't have a object; both nouns hav=
e equal grammatical weight, the difference being that the subject generally=
uses information the listener already knew to identify the topic (hence th=
e topic marker), and the noun in the "object" position is new inf=
ormation for the listener.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">~mIp'=
;av<br></div></div>
--001a114e313c9a4e480544048789--
--===============4220396346275079026==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============4220396346275079026==--
