tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 15 09:40:31 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -lu'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -lu'
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 12:40:26 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Dec 14, 94 3:40 pm
According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>
...
> Well, for starters, were *I* saying this sentence (depending on the
> context), most of the time I wouldn't use -lu' at all. After all, the
> English "It made him willing to die" implies that there was something
> specific that did so, so I'd use an implicit or explicit "'oH" and leave it
> at that. I'd only use the impersonal -lu' if I wanted to say that
> something really unspecified did it (which we in English would probably
> cast as "Maltz was made to be willing to die"---not that -lu' is passive,
> but that's how we'd say the closest English equivalent).
I completely agree.
> >1) How would YOU say, "It made Maltz willing to die"?
>
> matlh HeghqangmoH
Ummm. I don't know. This is where I read something into the TKD
example that, well, I guess may be wrong, but... I read this as
"It was willing to cause Maltz to die." When I read the TKD
example, it bothered me because I felt that {-qang} should be
ascribed to the subject instead of the object, and later, it
hit me that the ONLY reason that in this case it should be
ascribed to the object is the {-lu'}. Otherwise, as you have
pointed out, this is a really weird place to use {-lu'}.
We can add this to the list of things to bring up whenever
anybody gets a chance to talk with the new, communicative
Okrand.
> ~mark
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |