tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 14 23:17:42 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -lu'
Subject: Re: -lu'
Date: 94-12-14 23:57:52 EST
From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
>True. Thus -qang can (and does) apply to either the grammatical subject or
>object when used with -moH, so I'm not sure how it argues for or against
>either position. Then again, I don't truly see the difference between the
>purported positions either.
To clarify, my position is that {HoHqanglu'} means, "someone is willing to
kill," whereas I take it that charghwI'-'s position thereon is that the same
would mean, "he/she/it is willing to be killed." The reason I disagree with
him on that point is that I don't believe {HoHlu'} really has to mean,
"someone kills *him/her*," but just, "someone kills." If {ghaH} is explicitly
stated as the object, then yes, I would think of it that way.
We all know that {Heghlu'} would have to be interpreted, "someone dies." So I
would have to interpret {HoHlu'} simply as, "someone kills," and not "he/she
is killed," unless the "he/she" part is given by context or explicitly
stated. That's where charghwI' and I diverge.
Thusly would I say, then, that to me {HoHqanglu'} means, "someone is willing
to kill." No object is given nor implied by context, so I'd question a person
such as charghwI', how could this be interpreted with the passive?
Guido