tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 16 09:27:59 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "Is this seat taken?"
- From: [email protected] (Marnen Laibow-Koser )
- Subject: Re: "Is this seat taken?"
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 22:22:43 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Will Martin" at Feb 16, 94 11:14 am
jatlhta' charghwi':
:
:
: On Feb 16, 2:42am, [email protected] wrote:
[...]
: > 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', as always I respect your opinions and find their well-thought-out
reasoning an asset to the list. However, I must disagree with you here. You're
trying to make Klingon too much like English, and make >-lu'< a passive
suffix. It is not; rather, it keeps the active voice (there is *no* passive in
Klingon), but makes the subject indefinite. Since, the screwed-up prefixes
notwithstanding, the subject and object are not switched, there is no worry of
an intransitive verb being turned into a verb with zero subject. To me, the
canon example only adds credence to this explanation. Call me old-fashioned,
but I will continue using >-lu'< on intransitive verbs and >-ghach< on
unsuffixed verbs, not to mention any old verb as an adjective. ;>
(This is NOT a flame -- sorry if it sounds like one.)
:
: charghwI'
:
:
Qapla' Qichqemwi'vo'.
--
===============================================================================
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | Marnen E.
| |/ \ \ / \ \ / \ \ | |/ \_\ | |/ \ \ / \_\ | |/ \ \ | Laibow-Koser
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |/ | | | | | laibow@brick.
|_| |_| |_| \_\|_| |_| |_| |_| \_\_/ |_| |_| | purchase.edu
| SUNY Purchase
===============================================================================