tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 15 08:39:58 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -lu'
>Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 02:30:35 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: [email protected]
>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.
Aha. I see what you mean then. The use of -moH consufed the situation,
since -qang with -moH might apply to the thing being caused or the thing
doing the causing, by convention, according to context. If your analysis
of your and charghwI''s respective positions is correct, I'd have to agree
with you. There's no evidence that -lu' is a true passive as you're
stating charghwI' would have it; Okrand goes out of his way to make sure we
know it's an impersonal construction, with -lu' simply indicating an
indefinite subject.
Hmm. It's possible that naturally transitive verbs might also have the
feature of -moH'd verbs (i.e. just as "qaghojqangmoH" can mean "I am
willing to teach you"--and I contend it can), so too can "Heghqanglu'" mean
he/she is willing that someone kills him/her... but I don't think so.
>Guido
~mark