[Tlhingan-hol] To-Be-Constructions

[Felix Malmenbeck]

> Isn't that sort of forced by the grammar?
> {Dochvam 'oH} -> {Dochvam nuq}
> {yIH 'oH} -> {yIH nuq}

It wasn't forced in the case of {SoH 'Iv}; he could've used {'Iv SoH}, instead.

> You can't say {'oH Dochvam} or {'oH yIH}.

I don't think there's any reason to think you couldn't (though with -'e' at the end); we haven't seen it, but it doesn't strike me as absent by necessity. After all, we have phrases like {nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'.}, with puchpa''e' as the subject of 'oH.

________________________________________
From: De'vID jonpIn [de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 19:45
To: tlhIngan-Hol at kli.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] To-Be-Constructions

loghaD:
>>> Dochvam nuq? ("What's this thing?")
>>> yIH nuq? ("What is a tribble?")

De'vID:
>> In both of these cases, the question word is acting as a pronoun, and these aren't {-'e'} constructions.

loghaD:
> True, though I still think it's indicative that the thing being asked about is the object of such questions.

Isn't that sort of forced by the grammar?
{Dochvam 'oH} -> {Dochvam nuq}
{yIH 'oH} -> {yIH nuq}

You can't say {'oH Dochvam} or {'oH yIH}.

loghaD:
>>> Sojvetlh 'oH nuq'e'? ("What is that food?")

De'vID:
>> This was given in PK as the pronunciation in the standard dialect of a Morskan dialect sentence.
>> I wonder if the grammar is not also odd?

loghaD:
> That seems like a bit of a strech; Marc Okrand says it's in the standard dialect (not just standard pronunciation), and furthermore it seems that the grammar is corrected from the Morskan example, because in the Morskan example there's no -'e' appended, but in the standard dialect version there is.

Yes, this is the strongest counterexample to the way everyone on this
thread seems to agree or suspect it's done.

--
De'vID

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol