tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 15 09:59:49 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -lu'
According to [email protected]:
...
> 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.
This is my point. If I say:
matlh HoHqanglu'
With current evidence, I cannot accept the translation:
"One is willing to kill Maltz."
I have to accept the translation:
"Maltz is willing to be killed."
Meanwhile, if the sentence were:
matlh HoHqang vay'.
I could not accept the translation:
"Maltz is willing to be killed by somebody."
I could only accept the translation:
"Somebody is willing to kill Maltz."
Given the noun {vay'}, I see this as the only REAL need for
{-lu'}. While {-lu'} is useful in many places where it could be
replaced by {vay'}, this is the one place in which {-lu'} and
{vay'} become devices to disambiguate a given sentence.
While it would have been neater for Okrand to come out and
explain this, since he hasn't, I can find no other reason for
his coming up with the otherwise truely weird example of
{HeghqangmoHlu'}.
> Guido
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |