tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 03 17:06:31 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Re[2]: }} KLBC: Life is like...
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Re[2]: }} KLBC: Life is like...
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 17:06:31 -0400
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed, 2 Aug 95 17:44:14 EDT
>According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>>
>> >Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 23:27:53 -0500
>> >From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>>
>> >ghItlh charghwI':
>> >> [lots of sneaky derivation omitted]
>> >> So, perhaps legh'eghmoHlu'wI' would mean
>> >> "thing that makes one see ones self". A mirror.
>>
>...
>> >{X legh'eghmoHlu'} "[something] causes X to see him/herself" -- I'm lost.
>> >Something about {-moHlu'} just doesn't click.
>> >{legh'eghmoHlu'wI'} "thing which causes one to see oneself" -- follows
>> >nicely from the previous sentence, but I'm not sure why that sentence is
>> >correct. Does anybody have any helpful explanations?
>>
>> It doesn't follow for me either. "-lu'" means that the subject of this
>> verb is indefinite. "-wI'" means that the subject of this verb is the
>> thing we're talking about (ghunwI' says there's some programming going on,
>> and we want to deal with the thing doing the programming as a noun:
>> programmer). "-lu'wI'" seems to be trying to do two things at once: We
>> want to talk about the thing that's doing this verb... oh, and that sthing
>> is indefinite, so we're not mentioning it." Trying to have the 'Iwchab and
>> eat it too.
>I don't think it is that complicated. {-lu'} changes the roles
>of subject and object.
Huh??? Wait, you really went past me there. Okrand says explicitly that
"-lu'" indicates that the subject is indefinite, not that it's a reverser.
Do you mean that "*HoD leghlu' puq" means "The captain sees the child"
because the roles are reversed? Okrand *never* said anything like that.
The only thing that even comes close is the way the prefixes flipflop
their meanings, but that doesn't prove anything. After all, if "-lu'"
reverses subject and object, then "paq leghlu'", which has the "paq" in the
object position, would really mean it was the subject... so it's the book
that does the seeing! But we know that's not so!
Okrand said that -lu' meant an indefinite subject. Really. He
specifically avoided saying it was the same as the passive, and certainly
*never* said it reversed roles like this.
>legh He sees.
>leghwI' One who sees.
>leghlu' He is seen. One sees him.
So far, with you.
>leghlu'wI' One who is seen. One whom one sees.
Nuh-uh. I don't buy this. The "-wI'" means that the subject of the verb
is the noun under consideration. The "-lu'" means that that subject is
indefinite. So if "leghlu'" means "something sees (it)", "?leghlu'wI'"
would be "The something that sees (it)." Okrand specifically tells us what
"-lu'" means: that the subject is indefinite.
>legh'egh He sees himself.
>legh'eghwI' One who sees himself.
OK on these.
~mark