tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 18 19:52:04 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -lu'
According to R.B Franklin:
>
>
> With respect to {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} meaning "it made him willing to
> die", I have trouble with that translation. Every time I look at it, *I*
> see, "it has been willing to make him die".
>
> Are ya'll certain that it is the {-lu'} and not the {-moH} which
> transfers the {-qang} to refer to the object instead of the subject?
Interesting idea. I don't think so, but it is worth
considering, since the object of a verb with {-moH} is still
the subject of the root verb, but... naaaah. I don't think so.
> If the sentence really means, "it made him willing to die," I still would be
> hesitant to use such a construction because I think many people would
> misunderstand me.
Which points to MY feeling that Okrand would have done well to
explain the example better.
> The whole idea seems to directly contradict the
> meaning of {-qang} under section 4.2.2., which states, "Suffixes of this
> type express how much choice the SUBJECT has about the action described
> or how predisposed the SUBJECT is to doing it." (Emphasis added.)
What I've been proposing all along is that, like the English
passive, the focus that normally is placed upon the subject
gets transferred to the object, including the ascribed
characteristics of a Type 2 verb suffix.
> The
> translation provided indicates the volition of the object, not the
> subject. What mechanism is transferring the meaning of {-qang} to the
> object? Does this apply to other type 2 suffixes? Does {jInIDvIpmoHlu'}
> really mean, "They make me afraid to try" instead of "They are afraid to
> make me try?"
Well, maybe if it were {vInIDvIpmoHlu'}... You need a third
person singular object, remember. Anyway, yes, I think that
this means, "One makes me afraid to try," or "I am caused to be
afraid to try," while {munIDvIpmoH vay'} would mean, "Someone
is afraid to make me try." See?
> Does anyone besides me think that maybe, just maybe, Okrand made a mistake?
I think the "it" in his translation was not well considered
without more of an explanation, but I would stop short of
considering the entire translation to be a mistake.
> yoDtargh
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |