tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 11 11:43:40 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:41:22 -0800 (PST)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1265917282; bh=WrEMGSeXvJpm8uzpcMcYLyqj5meRZtiCWDu54Ja0LuA=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=OwHZDd/qEkEiLgtMFLqgbEXmyfjN+8VVrZMMJFyY+euK6RmdbPtkPrF1crPkiysChELZQHicGiyvWE6iZP5UCPwdAokajDZ6n0ddm9kl4r/OUcuEbsmkI2j/fKikgJKnZL9ToMrmg9qFkRJ/ezd/myDbSNcsHVoaaSiQ4V0VCjQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=u82W3XoJFxbTc8eFq1oC9An5E3rxYwAxlV7CB0dNdfWLzwwU/Nus98jTiPoh3tXEMr186bD1utNyw4FG7SCfvJpE09SntDpCAU16AODLpwluyJwaycGoonhWrm63uvJ0ZumUpelENPg2La7yheHcH2M6ehOFVTrinpNwUGQr25I=;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
I've kind of always tended to think that Andre's idea wasn't totally impossible. How about another type of nominalization, with {-ghach}, eg. {leghlu'ghach} 'the act of being seen' (there's no exact English equivalent, but so what?). If {-ghach} means the performance of an action by an implied subject, then I think {-lu'ghach} can mean the experience of an action applied to an object, and if {-wI'} is the doer of an action, then {-lu'wI'} can be the experiencer of an action.
Okrand says that the true meaning of {-lu'} is that someone unspecified applies the action to the object, and that it only superficially resembles an English passive. I don't know why he uses verb prefixes as if the object were the subject, but neither {-wI'} or {-ghach} take verb prefixes, so the problem is moot.
-- ter'eS
--- On Thu, 2/11/10, André Müller <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: André Müller <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Thursday, February 11, 2010, 12:07 PM
> 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>