tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 19 08:03:37 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -lu' with explicit objects
>Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:41:52 -0700
>From: "Mark J. Reed" <[email protected]>
>This has undoubtedly come up before, but I can't remember the
>resolution.
>If a verb has an indefinite subject but a definite object, to be
>named explicitly as a noun rather than absorbed as the pronoun implied
>by the prefix, where does the noun go? Does it precede the verb, as an
>object, or follow it, as the subject (matching the prefix change
>brought on by {-lu'})?
>My personal interpretation, made without referencing TKD since my copy
>is at home and I'm at work, is that it should match the verbal
>prefix and occupy the subject position. So, if Kruge had wanted to
>emphasize "you" in "You will be remembered with honor", it would be
> batlh Daqawlu'taH SoH
>and not
> batlh SoH Daqawlu'taH
>Agreed?
Disagreed.
The -lu' suffix indicates that the SUBJECT of the verb is indefinite. The
flip-flopping of the prefixes notwithstanding, the object of the verb
remains teh OBJECT and nothing else. Its position does not change. Canon
examples:
tlhaqwIj chu'Ha'lu'pu' My chronometer has stopped.
Note that this is "something has stopped my clock." "tlhaqwIj" remains in
its position as the OBJECT of the sentence, despite the presence of -lu'.
naDev tlhInganpu' tu'lu' There are Klingons around here.
Again, "tlhInganpu'" remains in the OBJECT position, despite "-lu'"
bortaS bIr jablu'DI' reH QaQqu' nay' lit. when cold revenge is
served, the dish is always
excellent.
"bortaS bIr" is the OBJECT with the indefinite subject given by "lu'". And
it stays before the verb.
Why should it matter if the object is third-person or second-person? It
should remain where objects belong: before the verb, like Kahless
intended. I have not seen ANY evidence, even recognized mistakes, that
would support putting the object of a -lu' sentence after the verb.
~mark