Re: [tlhIngan Hol] When did you buy the phone which you now use ?
ok, thanks ! But there is something else, which I need to ask. SuStel:
*DaH ghogh HablI''e' Dalo'bogh: ghorgh Daje'? *
Isn't the object of {Dalo'bogh} the {ghogh HablI''e'} ? And if it isn't the object (case in which it isn't necessary for it to be placed right before the {Dalo'bogh}), instead of {*DaH ghogh HablI''e' Dalo'bogh: ghorgh Daje'?} *could we write {ghogh HablI''e' DaH Dalo'bogh: ghorgh Daje' ?} ? qunnoq On 11 Aug 2017 5:09 pm, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote: On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
All of these are indeed wonderful suggestions, but let me ask you something.
Is the original sentence {ghorgh DaH ghogh HablI' Dalo'bogh Daje' ?} grammatically correct ?
Can we have side by side {ghorgh} and {DaH} ? This has been the source of my confusion in the first place.
Why not? You're allowed to use adverbials in relative clauses, and {ghorgh} goes at the beginning of the main sentence. It may or may not be awkward but I see no reason it would be ungrammatical. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/11/2017 10:28 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
*DaH ghogh HablI''e' Dalo'bogh: ghorgh Daje'? *
SuStel: * * Isn't the object of {Dalo'bogh} the {ghogh HablI''e'} ?
Not in that sentence. *ghorgh* is not an adverbial, so I can't invoke the rule in TKD Addendum 6.7 allowing objects with *-'e'* to move to the front. As I said, I was playing a little loose with the positioning rules. We don't ACTUALLY know whether *ghorgh* has any rules regarding its placement, so I took the liberty of putting the topic noun phrase before the *ghorgh.* If that's not allowed, then my sentence won't work. It might be the case that *ghorgh* follows the rules about putting time expressions before everything else.
And if it isn't the object (case in which it isn't necessary for it to be placed right before the {Dalo'bogh}),
instead of {*DaH ghogh HablI''e' Dalo'bogh: ghorgh Daje'?} *could we write {ghogh HablI''e' DaH Dalo'bogh: ghorgh Daje' ?} ?
If my sentence is valid, then so is this one. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Let me ask you something else.. Suppose I write {vIghro'lIj'e' vIparHa'} for "as for your cat, I like it". Is it correct to say that the object of {vIparHa'} is the {vIghro'lIj'e'} ? qunnoq On 11 Aug 2017 6:02 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:28 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
*DaH ghogh HablI''e' Dalo'bogh: ghorgh Daje'? *
Isn't the object of {Dalo'bogh} the {ghogh HablI''e'} ?
Not in that sentence. *ghorgh* is not an adverbial, so I can't invoke the rule in TKD Addendum 6.7 allowing objects with *-'e'* to move to the front.
As I said, I was playing a little loose with the positioning rules. We don't ACTUALLY know whether *ghorgh* has any rules regarding its placement, so I took the liberty of putting the topic noun phrase before the *ghorgh.* If that's not allowed, then my sentence won't work. It might be the case that *ghorgh* follows the rules about putting time expressions before everything else.
And if it isn't the object (case in which it isn't necessary for it to be placed right before the {Dalo'bogh}),
instead of {*DaH ghogh HablI''e' Dalo'bogh: ghorgh Daje'?} *could we write {ghogh HablI''e' DaH Dalo'bogh: ghorgh Daje' ?} ?
If my sentence is valid, then so is this one.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/11/2017 11:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Let me ask you something else..
Suppose I write {vIghro'lIj'e' vIparHa'} for "as for your cat, I like it".
Is it correct to say that the object of {vIparHa'} is the {vIghro'lIj'e'} ?
There are two possible interpretations. The normal one, which anyone would choose given no other context, is that *vIghro'lIj'e'* is the emphasized object of *vIparHa'.* However, it is also possible to consider a noun with *-'e'* to be a syntactic noun, like nouns with *-Daq**, -vo', -mo',* or *-vaD.* It is therefore possible to interpret *vIghro'lIj'e'* as the topic of the sentence rather than its object, and the actual object is elided. Consider this sentence: *vIghro'lIj'e' veDDaj vIparHa' */As for your cat, I like his fur./ Your sentence is the same sentence, just with the *veDDaj* elided: /As for your cat, I like it./ Without context we don't know what the /it/ refers to, but it's still a valid interpretation of the sentence. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (2)
-
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel