[87198] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark J. Reed)
Thu Nov 26 07:18:42 2009
In-Reply-To: <4b0e026d.6202be0a.79a3.12b9@mx.google.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:15:33 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
The description of {-vaD} may say "intended for", but it also refers
to the noun to which it is attached as the "beneficiary". That's
where the reading "for the benefit of" comes from. But I don't think
the difference between those is the significant point here.
It seems clear that {-vaD} is at least primarily an indirect object
marker, which means it's not at all clear what to do with it outside
of a sentence. The few examples we have of such use are just not that
enlightening.
Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is another thing that I think can be hard for someone new to the list. I fully acknowledge that
> this agreement exists, I'm just not sure it's based in canon. Which I don't mean as a putdown
> anything. One would expect a sketch of a language to start having new rules when people want
> to use it for a wide variety of tasks and topics.
Yes, but this list is extremely conservative in that regard, and has
consistently rejected anything novel not coming from Dr. Okrand. So
it's unlikely you'll find anything new in that sense.
What you will find is crystallization around grammar that may not be
explicit in the published materials, but has been fleshed out in
Usenet conversations, interviews (in HolQeD and elsewhere) and
personal one-on-one interaction with Dr. Okrand at events like the
{qep'a'}. In the majority opinion around here, the author's intent is
the ultimate authority.
I suppose it's possible novel features may be creeping in subtly
because they just feel right in the context of the myriad of
Okrand-sanctioned ones, but it seems unlikely that absolutely everyone
would agree with such instantly. And if everyone didn't agree
instantly, there would be some argument, and that would eventually
lead to a cited source or rejection or at best provisional acceptance
pending word from Maltz. In the latter case the thread itself would be
citable pending that word.
--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@gmail.com>
