[87231] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Adverb placement (was Re: The topic marker -'e')
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Fri Nov 27 00:11:34 2009
In-Reply-To: <4B0ECF44.3050703@trimboli.name>
From: "ghunchu'wI'" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:10:30 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Nov 26, 2009, at 1:56 PM, David Trimboli wrote:
> Again, Okrand has never used an adverbial in the same sentence as
> {'e'}
> or {net}, so it's hard to be sure how this works.
Skybox S26, {lursa' be'etor je}, contains a relevant -- and
troublesome -- example:
{DuraS tuq tlhIngan yejquv patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH DuraS
be'nI'pu' lurSa' be'etor je.}
"The sisters of the House of Duras, Lursa and B'Etor, are constantly
seeking a higher standing for the House of Duras within the Klingon
High Council."
Stripped down to its essentials, this is {luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH}.
{reH} indeed follows the object pronoun here. But we also see an
aspect suffix on the second verb, which TKD says never happens, so
the example is not obviously using correct grammar. I choose to
interpret TKD's "never happens" as prescriptive (or proscriptive, in
this case), and in the absence of further information I will not
emulate this contradictory example.
If {'e' reH} is actually a valid order, its failure to obey the
standard "adverbials come before objects" rule can be handwaved away
by pointing to the rule that says objects bearing {-'e'} may come
before the adverbial and suggesting that either 1) the similarity
between {'e'} and {-'e'} results in a common error that has become
standard usage, or 2) {'e'} has always had an implicit "topic"
meaning that lets it be fronted.
-- ghunchu'wI'
