[tlhIngan Hol] paq'batlh mu'tlhegh

[Ed Bailey]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 9:07 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

maj. however, how would you explain tkd's {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}, and
> in particular the placement of {naDev} after the {jIHtaHbogh} and not
> before it ?
>
>
My explanation is that to expect the {naDev} to be required to precede
{jIHtaHbogh} is an overgeneralization of the rule that places nouns +
{-Daq} and location nouns like {naDev} before the verb.

In the examples from TKD and paq'batlh, {naDev} does follow the verb, so
there seems to be an exception for a copula, at least for location nouns
occurring with relative clauses. That the same word order occurs again in
paq'batlh argues that it's not a mistake on Okrand's part.

Perhaps this shouldn't be all that surprising. For instance, the OVS rule
does not mean the noun preceding a copula is an object. A copula doesn't
have a object; both nouns have equal grammatical weight, the difference
being that the subject generally uses information the listener already knew
to identify the topic (hence the topic marker), and the noun in the
"object" position is new information for the listener.

~mIp'av
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161219/a857ed58/attachment.htm>