tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 16 09:08:55 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "Is this seat taken?"
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "Is this seat taken?"
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:14:04 EST
On Feb 16, 2:42am, [email protected] wrote:
> Subject: "Is this seat taken?"
> ... But the first item
> of business is performing a typo-ectomy. That first {Q} should be {q} and
> there should be no space between {ba'} and {-lu''a'}. So, it comes out
> {quSDaq ba'lu''a'}.
As if normal means were not enough to determine this, the weird phonetic
description following this phrase is a lot more like Guido's interpretation
than the imperfect version in TKD. Just wanted to add this as evidence...
> Anyways, how do the opinions go along the lines of
> using {-lu'} with intransitive verbs like {ba'}. Does {ba'lu'} mean
> "someone sits." Can we also say things like {Qonglu'}, {yItlu'}, {Heghlu'},
> etc.
>
> Or not?
> Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos {{:-()
I vote yes, initially. Then again, I see the problem. All the examples
involve the subject and object being reversed, with a third person singular
object always part of the prefix. If we follow this rule to the letter, then
we need a prefix that means "no subject, 3rd person singular object". No such
prefix exists, since all prefixes have subjects.
While the meaning of {Qonglu'} seems intuitively plain, the grammatical
controversy is so easily avoided by {Qong vay'}, I have to wonder if it is
worth it. That makes me place this in the growing pile of
things-that-may-not-be-illegal-but-are-just-as-well-avoided. Still, I have to
respect Guido for the persistence of his hunting for this kind of paradox
within the language. He pokes at the shaded spots.
As always, this is only wa' tlhIngan vuD. I am no grammarian.
charghwI'