tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 20 00:12:42 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ke'Plak
In a message dated 98-09-19 13:23:17 EDT, ghunchu'wI' writes:
<< nuqjatlh? I can't parse "...reverses the plurality to the subject..."
and I can't figure out a way to make sense out of it by assuming minor
typographical errors anywhere either. That's certainly not how Voragh
explained it, at least not in any note *I* have read. The suffix {-lu'}
can't do anything to the subject -- it says that there is *no* subject!
>>
jIQochchu'
"no subject" 'oSbe'ba' mojaQ {-lu'}
"indefinite subject" 'oSbej
vaj "subject" wISovbe' 'ach "subject" ghaj mu'tlhegh
rut wot mojaQ {-lu'} ghajbogh mu'tlhegh wImughDI' "subject" 'oH "one"'e'
majatlh
latlh QIj tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom
mojaQ {-lu'} lo'lu'DI' "subject-object pronomials" DIlo'nIS
'ej "action" Hev mu'tlhegh "object"
The object transceives the singularity/plurality that would have belonged to
the subject; this is why subject-object pronomials must be affixed to the verb
instead of our being allowed to use subject-no object pronomials.
jIngochtaHvIS qechvam vIchel "passive voice" 'oSbe'bej wot mojaQ {-lu'}
peHruS