[87225] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Thu Nov 26 21:13:23 2009
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:10:12 -0800
From: "Christopher Doty" <suomichris@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <4B0F23A7.5050005@trimboli.name>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Gah!! But WHY N1 for the N2 illegal?? This has been my question all along. And this is what you are saying with indirect objects, that one noun is for another noun..... I don't see how this meaning comes from the a verb.
And in these cases, regardless of whether the construction is illegal, the noun with -vaD isn't modifying it... It's not, e.g., 'a for-him knife', it's 'a knife for him.'
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
David Trimboli wrote:
Christopher Doty wrote:
> But I disagree. A noun with -vaD followed by a another noun is never
> a single noun phrase, and I don't think any of the cases where I used
> it could it be construed as such. Because in a n-n phrase, the first
> noun can't have any suffixes....
Good! So let's hear another sentence using {-vaD} and see where we're
at. And remember, "N1 for the N2" is an illegal noun-noun phrase.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
