[87218] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Thu Nov 26 18:58:47 2009
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:56:14 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <249d5b950911261408g55587991x87d8e787aa66898d@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Steven Lytle wrote:
> I think part of the problem in following this conversation is that in X-vaD
> Y, the X-vaD is never (supposed to be) a noun-noun construction, yet it's
> being called this over and over.
The question is whether {X-vaD Y} is a single noun phrase. If it is, it
would have to be a noun-noun construction, because there is no other
kind of noun phrase it could be. But it *can't* be a noun-noun
construction, because {-vaD} is not allowed on the first noun. So is it
really a noun phrase at all?
X-vaD Y Verb
Is X the beneficiary of Y or the beneficiary of Verb? TKD says it's the
beneficiary of Verb.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
