[111443] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Oct 6 05:01:09 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:51:12 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAG84SOs0ZMEFwPZ3Biun1JLMPUuqomaE53qL7YeaVc4M=b1K1A@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.
--===============1131942235934502989==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------E5170644C87252DB0CB7F83B"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------E5170644C87252DB0CB7F83B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/4/2017 11:35 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> That makes a little more sense, though I'm still not sure why *Duj
> wejDIchwIj* is under consideration either. Asking about something like
> *DujDaq wejDIch* vs. *Duj wejDIchDaq* would at least make some sense,
> since we know type 5 noun suffixes move around like that. But
> possession suffixes don't hop around like that, and *wejDIch* isn't a
> noun.
But *wejDIch* is treated grammatically as if it were a noun. "Numbers
are used as nouns." And our example for this is *qep'a' wejDIchDaq,//*in
which *qep'a' wejDIch* is a proper noun, which might affect the grammar.
So it's not actually completely clear, and it's not at all clear that
type 5 suffixes migrate to the ends of numbers modifying nouns they way
they do verbs modifying nouns.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------E5170644C87252DB0CB7F83B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<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 10/4/2017 11:35 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOs0ZMEFwPZ3Biun1JLMPUuqomaE53qL7YeaVc4M=b1K1A@mail.gmail.com">That
makes a little more sense, though I'm still not sure why <b>Duj
wejDIchwIj</b> is under consideration either. Asking about
something like <b>DujDaq wejDIch</b> vs. <b>Duj wejDIchDaq</b>
would at least make some sense, since we know type 5 noun suffixes
move around like that. But possession suffixes don't hop around
like that, and <b>wejDIch</b> isn't a noun.</blockquote>
<p>But <b>wejDIch</b> is treated grammatically as if it were a
noun. "Numbers are used as nouns." And our example for this is <b>qep'a'
wejDIchDaq,<i> </i></b>in which <b>qep'a' wejDIch</b> is a
proper noun, which might affect the grammar. So it's not actually
completely clear, and it's not at all clear that type 5 suffixes
migrate to the ends of numbers modifying nouns they way they do
verbs modifying nouns.<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>
--------------E5170644C87252DB0CB7F83B--
--===============1131942235934502989==
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
--===============1131942235934502989==--
