[111075] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Nouns in apposition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Thu Sep 21 04:21:44 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:42:21 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2c+m3cbZntKGWzvR9BQfJO=rReLmc=CMVd+PJOuRngYm2Q@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.
--===============7124713448327024944==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------59F1C88662E67D5E76275577"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------59F1C88662E67D5E76275577
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 9/20/2017 9:55 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> Is there such a rule, or is it something which is decided each time
> based on context ? Or maybe even on which type-5 noun suffix is
> actually used ? Because in Aurelie's example we have a {-vaD}, while
> in mine we have a {-Daq}.
With *-Daq,* you can have things within things. You can have both things
be locative but not equal. Not so with *-vaD:* every beneficiary is
individual. You could probably make *-vo'* work like *-Daq.*
There is no rule here. We have scant evidence—Voragh has given some—so
I'm going on what seems natural to me given both my native English bias
and my knowledge of Klingon.
If you need a rule of thumb, then mine is this: if multiple noun phrases
occupy the same syntactic role in a single sentence and are equal in
their scopes, they should be followed by a conjunction, otherwise they
must be interpreted in some other way. Other interpretations commonly
include apposition or some being subordinate in scope to others.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------59F1C88662E67D5E76275577
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/20/2017 9:55 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+m3cbZntKGWzvR9BQfJO=rReLmc=CMVd+PJOuRngYm2Q@mail.gmail.com">Is
there such a rule, or is it something which is decided each time
based on context ? Or maybe even on which type-5 noun suffix is
actually used ? Because in Aurelie's example we have a {-vaD},
while in mine we have a {-Daq}.</blockquote>
<p>With <b>-Daq,</b> you can have things within things. You can
have both things be locative but not equal. Not so with <b>-vaD:</b>
every beneficiary is individual. You could probably make <b>-vo'</b>
work like <b>-Daq.</b></p>
<p>There is no rule here. We have scant evidence—Voragh has given
some—so I'm going on what seems natural to me given both my native
English bias and my knowledge of Klingon.</p>
<p>If you need a rule of thumb, then mine is this: if multiple noun
phrases occupy the same syntactic role in a single sentence and
are equal in their scopes, they should be followed by a
conjunction, otherwise they must be interpreted in some other way.
Other interpretations commonly include apposition or some being
subordinate in scope to others.<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>
--------------59F1C88662E67D5E76275577--
--===============7124713448327024944==
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
--===============7124713448327024944==--
