[627] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Relative clauses; passive of verb; etc
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Apr 21 18:43:42 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: SPEERS@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 11:53 EDT
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us"
Regarding the type (a) ambiguity mentioned in the posting with this
subject:
Clearly, the basic meaning of the sentence is the same: there is some
officer, y, who hit some prisoner, z. If you want to emphasize one
over the other, 'the officer who hit the prisoner' vs. 'the prisoner
who the officer hit,' wouldn't you just affix a topic marker 'e' to
the emphasized noun in that construction?
Also, I'm typically receiving two copies of these postings from
Appleyard (sp?), from uk. Can this be prevented?
d'Armond
