tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 11 10:17:55 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 19:07:19 +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=n1ta+KhLfLyLq+52JHppZtKg19ic3kgO+UuvUo5yXzo=; b=IowVbIMjhq3c2je42bJG8Jzy6dNaPUtv05vSpYuEg5sVo4jnNZInEV6aGG1Kh0pwB3 OOO8357qwrelIfHO2e92Bfkm+tCoSBCn3s/1nzA4mWb+vFbBn2XXMpgXfW6g0pdQy4y0 yQhukf5JmRd5ziYfp7uF69D4BXNj1/dNs2jac=
- 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=Ze5/xMWo0Uead+GTlgckL3dDFh8/eNp9vxnH41r2+9X1uHBTe2WPkJMxV8A1ieTGBE /C3IeheSnrefjHXpsMSGKCsTav6knHvZI+UbNqeUtVevBygcULOMQzom6WtSz+fvuUiF 7CrSAA9tIAWKRX+kcrXSlzbZRCqmYJUEDZ6zQ=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Okay, "correctness" clearly depends on the analysis here. Okrand's analysis
differs from mine, but is valid too. I understand that Okrand's analyses are
always preferred over what linguists might say (in a natural language this
phenomenon wouldn't be all that easy to solve with just citing a sentence
from the grammar).
Unfortunately Okrand doesn't show us why he believes (I know, he created the
language) that the subject prefix marks the object here, instead of the
subject standing in the object position.
- André
2010/2/11 David Trimboli <[email protected]>
> On 2/11/2010 8:42 AM, André Müller wrote:
> > 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)
>
> Your analysis is incorrect. In {wIleghlu'}, "we" {maH} are the object,
> not the subject. In English passive voice sentences the subject and
> object move around, but there is no equivalent in Klingon. The verb
> prefix {wI-} does not indicate a first-person plural subject when on a
> verb with {-lu'}:
>
> Since the subject is always the same (that is, it is always
> unstated), the pronomial prefixes (section 4.1.1) are used in a
> different way. Those prefixes which normally indicate first- or
> second-person subject and third-person singular object (vI-, Da-,
> wI-, bo-) are used to indicate first- or second-person object.
> (TKD 4.2.5)
>
> With no subject to a verb with {-lu'}, it's hard to see what the verb
> would nominalize into. What is a "thing which does" if the verb says
> there is no specific thing which does?
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
>
>
>
>