tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 11 05:43:59 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
- From: Andrà MÃller <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:42:49 +0100
- 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 :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=afdGNo/Shx3/sbDONo3azSFn9Ik4HCtLSmI0sRjWlLw=; b=ZU6crdW33DzGODSv70dVSb5rTuHUc+aKnmZzAsADezM5vHKmAJAfJ1n5hcPVgjycjt azRdI5pkn1NakUiqQPbPGD0/ZT8iVeBNHlBfyKgaONFc1G8lDh7M4aUjy5ICjQhs7eJz rfWdqeH8HPKIn7NvLHEg7AoNCnI7/D+M7tsJ0=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=PlrCzZBb/iZaxJ2dKELyIO6clyZbqIRc9uoc7M2A/Pl7VM5p3eqpQd+Tqkx4YJaC12 DkCqMRx46t7usol8C1P87jlL2E0CSe+vF/lgquqPWGuh3QIS/2Gp8o8nCwOhavDPYlqx SXj0yW7+INtoT/GfAQWLlVOmPNr5LfLhHHLvM=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Thanks very much for your answer. You say a verb with {-lu'} has no subject.
This is partly true. See the following example:
{wIleghlu'.} = Someone sees us. / We are seen.
(1PL>3SG-see-PASS) [I'm just calling it a passive, because I can't come up
with a better term]
The prefix indicates that a first person plural subject is involved. But
when using an overt subject in such a sentence, it's used in object
position:
{naDev puqpu' [lu]tu'lu'.} = There are children around here. [the {lu-} is
optional]
(here child-PL 3PL>3SG-find-PASS)
This is weird and I'd be happy to know how this phenomenon is analyzed by
other linguists, but for now I just want to know if I may use these forms
when translating or writing Klingon texts. I'm not eager in being
provocative in any way judging only from my linguistic background and not
from a Klingonist's point of view. So the answer to the question, whether
{-lu'}-verbs have a subject or not, depends on whether subjecthood is
determined by the word order or by the agreement prefixes.
Depending on what is a more valid indicator for the subject, constructions
like {tlhoblu'wI'} ("what is asked", i.e. a question or request) are
grammatical or not.
I guess I'm not the first one who asked this question, and if you have a
link to a previous discussion on that, I'd be happy reading it. But I guess
it's true that there is no consensus. It interests me what other people
think about this {-lu'wI'} thing.
Also, I said I usually rephrase the sentence to avoid lenghty NPs. This
should be according to your suggestion and to what is recommendable in
general.
- André
2010/2/11 David Trimboli <[email protected]>
> On 2/11/2010 8:03 AM, André Müller wrote:
> > Dear all, I always wondered how best to translate the word
> > "question". So far I always rephrased the sentence to avoid
> > constructing a lengthy nominal phrase involving the verbs {tlhob} or
> > {ghel} (both mean "to ask").
>
> There's your problem right there. Don't construct a lengthy nominal
> phrase. Rephrase with a simple verb.
>
> > Now, while looking through {ghIlghameS} I had an idea: As {-lu'}
> > means more or less "someone verbs" (with a change of A and P for the
> > pronominal prefixes), and {-wI'} means "someone who does" OR
> > "something which does", is it possible to create a patient
> > nominalization with {-lu'wI'}?
> >
> > So, does {tlhoblu'wI'} mean "that which is asked" (i.e. the question
> > or request)? I think, the word I found in {ghIlghameS} was something
> > like {leghbe'lu'wI'} = "the unseen", but I don't quite remember.
> >
> > Are such forms grammatical? Do we even have canon examples for this?
> > Do you think it's a nice way to say "question" or "request"?
>
> This is an old chestnut, and you won't find a consensus here. For my
> money, this is not valid. {-wI'} nominalizes the verb into the subject,
> but {-lu'} means the verb has no subject. The two are mutually
> incompatible.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
>
>
>
>