tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 16 09:14:05 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -lu'
>Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:59:05 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>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.
Aha, I see what you're saying. I had drawn a closer parallel between the
meanings of "vay'" and "-lu'" (there should be some overlap, at least... if
only to handle stuff like "I can be seen"/"muleghlaH vay'"
>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'}.
We may want to chat with Okrand about this, but my gut tells me this is low
on the priority list.
>> Guido
>charghwI'
>--
~mark