[tlhIngan Hol] moon ph(r)ases, new adverbial {loQHa'}

[Will Martin]

The thing about {-‘e’} is that it seems to be used for both Focus and Topic. 

My limited understanding is that Focus can happen for any noun in any (not otherwise marked with some other Type 5 suffix) role in a sentence, but there is no grammatical place for Focus in a sentence independent of the other role of that noun, but Topic can be a grammatical function in the sentence separate from subject or object. Topic can be the only reason the noun is in that sentence.

[Topic: Soldiers in the galaxy] You are the boldest!

For me, that gives an adverbial good reason to follow a noun with {-‘e’} on it because as the topic, that noun is not really part of the main clause to which the adverbial is applied. Maybe the noun with {-‘e’} isn’t an object of the verb at all.

This is confusing because SOMETIMES, the Focus noun is object of the verb and other times the Topic noun is not object of the verb.

That’s how it seems to me, anyway.

pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




> On May 27, 2022, at 8:24 AM, Iikka Hauhio <fergusq at protonmail.com> wrote:
> 
> De'vID:
> TKD section 6.7 says "The adverbial may actually follow the object noun (but still precede the verb) when the object noun is topicalized by means of the noun suffix {-'e'}", but it doesn't say it can't do so if {-'e'} is absent. So at least it's not explicitly ruled out in TKD. I guess someone will now have to pull up all the relevant info on head nouns and adverbials in relative clauses revealed since TKD to justify one way or the other whether {-'e'} is required here.
> ​
> That is an exception to the main rule that adverbials precede the object. So it is ruled out by the main rule.
> 
> Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio
> 
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Friday, May 27th, 2022 at 14.26, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 at 12:26, D qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 'oqranD:
>> > maS loQHa' So'lu'bogh
>> > maS loQ So'lu'bogh
>> 
>> Shouldn't in both these cases the {maS} be {maS'e'} in order for it to
>> be able to precede the adverb?
>> 
>> I think it would be better if {-'e'} is present, but I'm not sure if it's necessary. Maybe someone else can clarify.
>> 
>> TKD section 6.7 says "The adverbial may actually follow the object noun (but still precede the verb) when the object noun is topicalized by means of the noun suffix {-'e'}", but it doesn't say it can't do so if {-'e'} is absent. So at least it's not explicitly ruled out in TKD. I guess someone will now have to pull up all the relevant info on head nouns and adverbials in relative clauses revealed since TKD to justify one way or the other whether {-'e'} is required here.
>> 
>> Dr. Okrand also wrote that these are "descriptions. They’re commonly used, but they’re not frozen forms. So they can be manipulated grammatically." I imagine that, if they were actually to be used in a sentence, you'd have to put the {loQ[Ha']} after the {maS} to make it clear that it's, e.g., {maS['e'] loQ So'lu'bogh vIlegh} "I see the slightly-hidden moon" and not {loQ maS So'lu'bogh vIlegh} "I slightly see the hidden moon".
>> 
>> -- 
>> De'vID
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220527/4176562f/attachment-0003.htm>