[87214] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Thu Nov 26 14:16:25 2009
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:14:29 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <a1173fff0911261039s22637f36yc062b1f3b7871631@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Christopher Doty wrote:
> This is more what I meant. I don't mean to imply that y'all say down
> and decided new stuff, but when a language starts being used and
> grammar is missing, speakers come to a consensus without realizing it
> or thinking about it. Someone starts using -vaD in a certain way, and
> that person is a respect speaker, so others assume he is right, and
> start using is the same way.... And so it goes...
This is certainly true. However, we all have different tolerances and
understandings of this sort of thing. I am open to most new
enlightenment, though I always strongly resist any ideas that are
clearly borne of Okrand making a mistake because something works a
certain way in English. This is where the prefix trick came from, which
only recently was explained to me in a way that has let me come to terms
with it. The idea of {N1-vaD N2} being a legitimate noun phrase (or any
N1-Type5 N2) really bothers me. Other people have different tolerances
for these things. I like the idea of using {N-'e'} as a standalone (not
subject or object) topic; some people strongly disagree that this is
valid, but they like the idea of using any {N1-Type5 N2} as a noun
phrase. Each of us has a little evidence on our side, but not enough to
make everyone confident that we've got it nailed. This wiggle-room is
where all our arguments take place, and depends primarily on who's doing
the arguing.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
