tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 03 16:53:13 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Re[2]: }} KLBC: Life is like...
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Re[2]: }} KLBC: Life is like...
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 16:53:13 -0400 (EDT)
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> charghwI' wrote:
> >We have only one canon example, and that one started one of the
> >longest, most frustrating debates this list has ever known. It
> >was VERY much abridged and posted in this most recent HolQeD in
> >the "Round Table". Pardon me if I avoid reopenning it.
> >Does this help at all?
>
> I'm afraid it doesn't. :-)
> However, I think I've done enough thinking to try some more derivations.
I thought that at qep'a' the latest HolQeD had just come out,
it was dominated (largest article in the issue) by an extended
Round Table discussion. Guido#1 and I were the primary
debaters, with significant additions by several others. trI'Qal
spoke of the great challenge of wading through such an enormous
argument to try to pick out a meaningful string. She was bummed
because she figured it was so large it would be split into at
least two issues, so she could rest a while, but Lawrence put
it all into one.
And you say that the latest HolQeD does not contain such a
Round Table discussion? Curious.
> {qem} is transitive. {X qem Y} "Y brings X."
> {qemmoH} has the two-object problem and we should avoid it.
> {lam} is intransitive. {lam Y} "Y is dirty." {X lam Y} is nonsense.
> {lammoH} is transitive. {X lammoH Y} "Y causes X to be dirty."
> {qem'egh} is "reflexive(?)" {qem'egh Y} "Y brings him/herself." {X
> qem'egh Y} is nonsense. Reflexive is similar to intransitive in this way.
> I'll go with that thought and see what happens if we replace {lam} with
> {qem'egh}.
> {qem'eghmoH} is transitive. {X qem'eghmoH Y} "Y causes X to bring
> him/herself." This is a novel concept to me. There's an {-'egh} on the
> verb, but it looks like the {-moH} transfers its effect to the object.
>
> So I don't see the need for {-lu'} in {legh'eghmoHwI'}. From my attempts
> above, {-moH} seems to take care of decoupling the subject from the
> {-'egh}.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
I could accept this. At one point, I faced this same
conclusion, though coming from it from the canon example, using
{-lu'} had a lot of momentum behind it. It deserves more
thought than I can now give it.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |