tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 11 17:33:33 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
- From: Andrà MÃller <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:32:08 +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=Bf7cDhFHA4eMhGoKu5gShHoNujeui8CXph3YMiWe/TU=; b=wTFrgtl4d+XD6GlsN7ZYqG8fUW6WgmBF1oxH+GNNOpgGq3tjVCPMDu5H7JmvESVpcm 14C+XgLOB8Gu0UbiETOQ0DQw7ATUoLhaMosI+zZ8drYgtDYW0QutNFSyEbhmBtB7JEjp orpOReFzq67DLe5dVRS4OMcAJm8un83lNWiMc=
- 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=Z7B480DlX6EgMpIHKqilYr8bkLiBnKJp+0oFRHmhjNOlbdu6yHDMRG8yyOHx3wlW3B aWG0JuHCP35IO8w78Um+ecYHkDcDQaJoTA3Wnyrtv66TlcaEyBRo+e+tNP7brmNd4c8t UHTWOTfWBYQP/9nyHcOSi+dhoUD9xN1isuveU=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Dear David,
I agree on what you wrote about {-ghach}. I don't have any canon example in
my data which has both {-lu'} and {-ghach} in one word. Do you think this is
possible? If {-ghach} solely describes the action, regardless of who is
doing it to whom, then the roles of subject and object for transitive verbs
shouldn't matter for {-ghach} words. Likewise, because {-lu'} only changes
roles, makes the (semantical) subject indefinite but doesn't change the
verb's valency, {-lu'} wouldn't add any difference to the meaning.
So, if both words would exist, then both {tlhutlhqa'ghach} and
{tlhutlhqa'lu'ghach} would mean the same thing: the act of repeated/resumed
drinking and the act of repeated/resumed being drunk. Which would
essentially be the same, if one disregards semantic roles altogether (which
I think {-ghach} does).
If I understood this right, then there shouldn't be any {-lu'ghach}
sentences.
About your sentence "Show me one scrap of evidence that suggests that
Klingons use {-wI'} to nominalize the object." further above: I hope I've
shown that I didn't mean {-wI'} could nominalize the object, but that in
interaction with {-lu'} in MY analysis, this would be possible. But then
again, we are to trust Okrand's analysis, even though he didn't explain his
reason or gave any evidence.
- André
2010/2/12 David Trimboli <[email protected]>
> On 2/11/2010 2:41 PM, Terrence Donnelly wrote:
> > 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?).
>
> When I see {leghlu'ghach}, I think "the act of one's seeing." A noun
> meaning the act of someone unspecified seeing. I don't know if the word
> would be meaningful to Klingons, though.
>
> Again, the issue here isn't the Klingon, it's the tendency to think in
> English passive voice when you're looking at the word. If you must
> translate to think about the meaning, translate into the active voice
> and try to work with that. If there's a difference when you do that,
> you're working from translation, not from the original.
>
> > If {-ghach} means the performance of an action by an implied subject,
>
> I don't think that's what it means. {-ghach} is all about the difference
> between the verb as a noun and the verb plus suffix as a noun. We know
> for a fact that {tlhutlh} is not a noun. But imagine for a moment that
> it were, and it meant "drinking, the act of drinking." Now add a suffix,
> say {-qa'}: {tlhutlhqa'}. We also know for a fact that {tlhutlhqa'}
> cannot be a noun, but if it were it would be the meaning of {tlhutlh}
> plus the meaning of {-qa'}: "resumed drinking, the resumption of
> drinking. Well, Klingon DOES allow us to do this, if we add {-ghach} to
> the end: {tlhutlhqa'ghach} "resumed drinking."
>
> The suffix in there is not incidental to the meaning; it is just as
> important as the verb itself. It is exactly what distinguishes the full,
> nominalized verb from the bare stem if it could be nominalized.
>
> Where in all of this does the subject of the verb come in? It doesn't.
> You call it an implied subject, but I contend that there is no implied
> subject. Yes, logic tells us that SOMEONE must do the verb, at least in
> theory, in order for the verb to mean anything, but the actual
> performance of the verb, even just in theory, IS NOT BUILT INTO THE
> NOMINALIZED VERB. {-ghach} does not capture it.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> We don't actually know that for sure, either, though my money is once
> again against it.
>
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
>
>
>