[93084] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Tlhingan-hol Digest, Vol 9, Issue 1
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Tue May 1 09:54:58 2012
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 09:54:28 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
In-Reply-To: <mailman.8137.1335870101.29215.tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On 5/1/2012 7:01 AM, tlhingan-hol-request@stodi.digitalkingdom.org wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses From:
> Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> Date: 5/1/2012 7:01 AM
>
> To: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>, tlhIngan-Hol
> <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
>
>
>>> If you expand a tool so that it can mean several different
>>> things, then the grammar itself begins to convey less meaning.
> ...and if you constrain it too much, it can become less versatile;
> it's a double-edged sword.
>
>>> You seem to be a strong proponent of weakening {-meH} until it
>>> stops indicating a purpose clause and begins instead to vaguely
>>> suggest some sort of poorly defined association with the main
>>> verb.
> I'd argue I'm not a proponent of any such thing. First and foremost,
> I'm speculating and asking the community about what sort of structure
> these sentences appear to exemplify
They exemplify the structure of Okrand thinking in English and not
considering carefully enough what the sentence actually means. Is that
not obvious?
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
