[87220] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Lytle)
Thu Nov 26 19:17:40 2009
In-Reply-To: <4B0F159E.8060807@trimboli.name>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:16:20 -0500
From: Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Exactly. But it's still being *called* a noun-noun construction, and it
shouldn't be, because it isn't.
lay'tel SIvten
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:56 PM, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
