tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 04 06:52:46 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Re[2]: }} KLBC: Life is like...
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Re[2]: }} KLBC: Life is like...
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 95 10:52:46 METDST
ghItlh charghwI'
> > >
> > > Given TKD's example on page 45 of HeghqangmoHlu'pu' = "It made
> > > him/her willing to die," it seems that HeghqangmoHlu'pu'wI'
> > > would be "thing that made him/her willing to die". Remove
> > > {-qang} and add {-'egh} and one suspects Hegh'eghmoHlu'pu'wI' =
> > > "thing that made him/her kill him/herself".
> > >
> > hmm. I have some problems with that...
> > first of all, I don't think -lu' and -wI' go together very well
>
> I don't see anything that blocks their interaction.
>
> > but I'd like to analyse the above expression in order to find
> > out where that causation ("made") in your translation might
> > come from (the choice of pronouns is of course arbitrary):
> >
> > Hegh she dies
> > *Hegh'egh -
> > HeghmoH she causes him to die/she kills him
> > Hegh'eghmoH she causes herself to die/she kills herself
> > HeghmoHlu' one causes her to die/one kills her
> > Hegh'eghmoHlu' one causes oneself to die/one kills oneself
>
(sorry for the massive quoting, I just think it all
still contributes..)
> The one who is causing is not the one performing the action.
which means Hegh'eghmoH is ungrammatical because it would mean
*she causes him to die himself, I don't think that's true.
> With {-moH}, the subject is causing the action while the object
> is doing the action, and the action is intransitive.
which still doesn't preclude(?) the object from being
the same as the subject, does it?
thus: she causes herself to... (e.g. die)
> With {-lu'} the subject is indefinite, but the object is identified.
which again doesn't preclude the object from being indefinite
or especially being the same indefinite thing/person as the
subject, e.g. vay' HoHlu' one kills somebody or HoH'eghlu'
one kills oneself (although the prefix used is not 'allowed'
with -'egh, I think this works alright)
> Here, the subject is indefinite and is causing the object,
> which is NOT indefinite to die. This means, "One causes him to
> die himself", which is not really very good...
>
I still think Hegh'eghmoHlu' should be one causes oneself to die
> A better verb would have been HoH. Oh well.
>
> > HeghwI' one who dies/*thing which dies
> > HeghmoHwI' killer
>
> This is slightly complicated by the separate listing of
> {HeghmoH} as "be fatal".
>
a killer sure is 'someone who is fatal' in a sense :-)
> > Hegh'eghmoHwI' Selbstmoerder(sorry) one who kills himself
> > *HeghmoHlu'wI' ?
>
> "One who causes him to die"
>
what would be HeghmoHwI' then?
in an other post you said
leghlu' one sees him/he is seen
and followed therefrom that
leghlu'wI' one who is seen
that would mean
HeghmoHlu'wI' one who is caused to die/one who is killed
but I'm not convinced. This means you make the
object of the verb the thing -wI' refers to instead
of the subject. (There's another post in which you are
challenged on this, so I'll leave it here)
> charghwI'
Marc 'Dochlangan'
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------