tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 22 21:39:17 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ke'Plak
mujang peHruS:
>>...I can't parse "...reverses the plurality to the subject..."
>>...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
va, bIQochchu'be'qu'. loQ bIQoch neH. TKD mu'mey Dalo'mo' bIlughba'.
>vaj "subject" wISovbe' 'ach "subject" ghaj mu'tlhegh
Qo'! "subject" Hutlhchu'qu' mu'tlhegh'e'! not "subject" ghItlhlu'.
rut "subject" wISovbe'bogh ghaj wot. rut wot "subject"-qoq wISov.
'ach <-lu'> lo'lu'chugh, mu'tlheghDaq not wot tlha' DIp.
>rut wot mojaQ {-lu'} ghajbogh mu'tlhegh wImughDI' "subject" 'oH "one"'e'
>majatlh
mamughtaHvIS mu'mey law' DIjatlhlaH. <quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'> wImughmeH,
"Is this seat taken?" maghellaH. "take" 'oSbogh mu' Dangu''a'? pagh
tob mu' mughlu'ta'bogh.
>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.
I can't figure out what you're trying to explain here. What do you mean
by "...transceives the singularity/plurality that would have belonged to
the subject..."? Is a "pronomial" a verb prefix, and if so, why are you
not calling it a verb prefix?
Look, I know what {-lu'} means. I used to think you knew what it means.
But I have no clue what your explanations are saying. This discussion
started because you incorrectly said that {lughoDlu'bogh} indicated a
singular object. I'm not sure whether you still think that's the case
or if you've corrected your mistaken reading of the phrase. But I *am*
sure that your description of what {-lu'} does is using words that are
nothing like what's in TKD. I don't quite know what you mean by them,
so I can't tell whether you're correct or not, but I think that whether
*you* are confused or not, you are *causing* a lot of confusion.
>jIngochtaHvIS qechvam vIchel "passive voice" 'oSbe'bej wot mojaQ {-lu'}
{-bej} is a bit too strong for this idea, in my opinion. TKD itself says
that verbs with {-lu'} are often translated into the English passive voice.
-- ghunchu'wI'