[110573] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] When did you buy the phone which you now use ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Aug 11 11:29:42 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:29:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cL_KtiB8B9R-ozr33EBLXk65PPE-0+awRFX3Lx+mk9sOg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============7036858833877045011==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------3F1D817D7E7D6E4D7A689136"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------3F1D817D7E7D6E4D7A689136
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 8/11/2017 11:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> Let me ask you something else..
>
> Suppose I write {vIghro'lIj'e' vIparHa'} for "as for your cat, I like it".
>
> Is it correct to say that the object of {vIparHa'} is the
> {vIghro'lIj'e'} ?
There are two possible interpretations.
The normal one, which anyone would choose given no other context, is
that *vIghro'lIj'e'* is the emphasized object of *vIparHa'.*
However, it is also possible to consider a noun with *-'e'* to be a
syntactic noun, like nouns with *-Daq**, -vo', -mo',* or *-vaD.* It is
therefore possible to interpret *vIghro'lIj'e'* as the topic of the
sentence rather than its object, and the actual object is elided.
Consider this sentence:
*vIghro'lIj'e' veDDaj vIparHa'
*/As for your cat, I like his fur./
Your sentence is the same sentence, just with the *veDDaj* elided: /As
for your cat, I like it./ Without context we don't know what the /it/
refers to, but it's still a valid interpretation of the sentence.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------3F1D817D7E7D6E4D7A689136
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/11/2017 11:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cL_KtiB8B9R-ozr33EBLXk65PPE-0+awRFX3Lx+mk9sOg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Let me ask you something else..
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Suppose I write {vIghro'lIj'e' vIparHa'} for "as
for your cat, I like it".</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Is it correct to say that the object of {vIparHa'}
is the {vIghro'lIj'e'} ?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>There are two possible interpretations.</p>
<p>The normal one, which anyone would choose given no other context,
is that <b>vIghro'lIj'e'</b> is the emphasized object of <b>vIparHa'.</b></p>
<p>However, it is also possible to consider a noun with <b>-'e'</b>
to be a syntactic noun, like nouns with <b>-Daq</b><b>, -vo',
-mo',</b> or <b>-vaD.</b> It is therefore possible to interpret
<b>vIghro'lIj'e'</b> as the topic of the sentence rather than its
object, and the actual object is elided.</p>
<p>Consider this sentence:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>vIghro'lIj'e' veDDaj vIparHa'<br>
</b><i>As for your cat, I like his fur.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Your sentence is the same sentence, just with the <b>veDDaj</b>
elided: <i>As for your cat, I like it.</i> Without context we
don't know what the <i>it</i> refers to, but it's still a valid
interpretation of the sentence.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------3F1D817D7E7D6E4D7A689136--
--===============7036858833877045011==
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
--===============7036858833877045011==--
