tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 31 19:06:03 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -wI'
Hovjaj 96084.6 ghItlh ~mark:
>Taking all these definitions together, *IF* you hold by both the two
>philosophies enumerated above, that would imply that "-wI'" could imply
>(1) a person ("one") who is the subject of an active verb ("one who does")
>(2) a person ("one") who is the subject of a stative verb ("one who is")
>(3) a thing ("thing") which is the subject of an active verb ("thing which
>does")
>BUT NOT
>(4?) a thing ("thing") which is the subject of a stative verb.
[...]
>NOW. If you DON'T agree with those two philosophies (I don't), you don't
>have the problem. It all boils down to whether or not you think Okrand was
>being exhaustive or illustrative, and whether or not he really draws those
>distinctions between "one" and "thing" and between "is" and "does."
Let me just add that (I think) it should be plain that Okrand *was* being
illustrative, because he constantly changes the translations of the suffix.
If he was being exhaustive, that he was also being *contradictory*, by
changing the meaning of the suffix.
SuStel
Hovjaj 96084.9