tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 02 13:00:29 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }}} KLBC: wamwI'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }}} KLBC: wamwI'
- Date: Wed, 2 Aug 95 13:00:29 EDT
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> Marc Ruehlaender writes:
> >> lo'laH is irregular. It doesn't follow normal grammatical rules.
> >
> >all right. but can it still be 'can use' and can I
> >add suffixes to lo'laH (other than -ghach) as I did
> >in lo'moHlaH to mean 'cause to be valuable'?
>
> Yes, {lo'laH} still can be "can use". I'd rather it ONLY mean that, but I
> must accept "be valuable" as a valid translation. No, I don't think
> {lo'moHlaH} can
> mean "cause to be valuable". Putting {-moH} in there has lost the essence
> of {lo'laH}. If we stretch a bit, we just might be able to consider
> {lo'laH} a true verb and apply suffixes to it as a unit. IF that's what we
> want to do, I would understand {*lo'laHmoH} as "cause to be valuable".
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
jIQoch. Presuming that {lo'laH} can mean either "can use" or
"be valuable", much as {SaH} can mean "care (about)" or "be
present", one meaning is transitive and one meaning is
intransitive. "Can use" is by necessity transitive. Without an
object, "can use" is gibberish.
"Be valuable" is by necessity intransitive. One cannot "be
valuable" something. There can be no object.
So far, we only know how to use {-moH} on intransitive verbs.
We get very confused when we throw an object on a verb with
{-moH}. The grammar doesn't follow rules we currently have.
Given that {lo'moHlaH} could ONLY mean, "cause to be valuable",
since the subject does the causing and the object is the thing
which becomes valuable. "Cause to be able to use" doesn't work
because the subject does the causing, the object acquires the
ability to use and we have no hole left in the grammar in which
to place whatever it is that the object is supposed to gain the
ability to use.
Dayaj'a'?
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |