[Tlhingan-hol] noun{'e'} (...) ghaH

[mayql qunenoS]

ok, thanks !

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:27 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 2/8/2016 5:30 AM, mayql qunenoS wrote:
>>
>> Some time ago,  in a discussion that took place between Qov and me, I
>> was informed that the following construction can be employed :
>>
>> noun{'e'} (...) ghaH
>>
>> With the given example
>>
>> {Qov'e' qa'naDa'ngan ghaH}
>> As for Qov she's a Canadian.
>
>
> I wouldn't accept this formally. I see what she's doing: she's starting with
> a perfectly acceptable "to be" sentence, {qa'naDa'ngan ghaH} "she's a
> Canadian," and adding a syntactic noun at the front.
>
> I can see a couple of reasons not to do this. First of all, the "to be"
> sentence already has a standard form that includes a topicalized noun:
> {qa'naDa'ngan ghaH Qov'e'} "Qov is a Canadian." The "subject" is marked with
> {-'e'}, which isn't an instance of emphasis; it must be topic. {qa'naDa'ngan
> ghaH Qov'e'} already means "as for Qov, she is a Canadian."
>
> Furthermore, we also know that when a "to be" sentence has a locative noun
> involved, the noun that is "being" is moved:
>
>    HoD ghaH
>    he is the captain
>
>    pa'Daq ghaHtaH HoD'e'
>    the captain is in his quarters
>
> It may be that any syntactically marked noun causes a "to be" sentence to
> behave this way:
>
>   *noHmo' ghaH Sub'e'
>    because of the war he is a hero
>
> We've never seen such a sentence, but it's not impossible.
>
>> PS : Did anyone receive a mail I sent with the title Ca'non pIn'a'
>> QaHlIj vIneH ?
>
>
> I received both of them. I've got an answer; I'll reply shortly.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol