tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 24 18:41:32 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:40:06 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=85Jxmw8nJsfc5NZQ22YdPUOGK0a4HbF2Z0/su6IU6og=; b=d6+3kBTn3YfuP2vq6EPGmDNv7Lv7YNC2bW4ah4FznFCaZ/Qv9rOZayrGZ+eA3UnCoy gFm4deO+fGq9JLwWys06bteLQknWcVVwhU4T60mhkki/hTrpkOT1zNVl6VucioKJ595M h5Q+xeGUd9HqAuKMQ1P3tesmbSHvAod8pSQ50=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=KrB+xBA6CXuePgxggrT3Ob/OQwGXP5N8oUT9UKegA0/atvghsRFoJLYWXmkLaZAUgN ZJk/7FPIVteTwQCO336eEwJWxn/j4/FXBTfB24pE05TUJrtwmJMSmdSh1r9W9xOHJszq 92b49PTqVwVWI54r+GqxuU6DC+PoQMa+/m4kk=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
> Often the suffix {-lu'} maps well to English passive voice. However,
> sometimes it doesn't. For example, {tlhuHnISlu'} "one must breathe."
I didn't say that it was exactly the same; in fact, I was very careful
not to. -lu' probably does other things in Klingon, but it is also
doing something that is a passive.
> In a sentence with a verb bearing {-lu'}, the subject is indefinite.
Yes, because it is unimportant, and thus demoted, and thus gone.
> The object, if one exists, does not change.
No, it does not, in terms of neither its semantics nor its syntax,
which is why I said that it is not a perfect, canonical passive, where
we would expect vI- to change to jI-. What we have instead is vI-,
instead of meaning 1singular-3rd, meaning something-1singular.
Technically, this is an inverse voice construction (syntactically) but
semantically, it is functioning as a passive.
> I suspect that your
> understanding of the situation is being misinformed by your trying to
> apply terms from your linguistic training.
Dude, stop saying this. Just because you don't understand something
doesn't mean that anyone else who says anything about it is
automatically wrong. I am not misinformed, and I am not misapplying
terms.