tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 17 04:49:33 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
"Is this seat taken?"
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: "Is this seat taken?"
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 17:47:29 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:14:04 EST <[email protected]>
>From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:14:04 EST
>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.
I disagree here. I don't see a grammatical problem. And what's more,
Okrand himself left the door open for me not to see it. Says he, (TKD Sect
4.2.5 pp. 38-39) "Those prefixes which normally indicate a first- or
second-person subject and third-person singular object ... are used to
indicate first- or second-person object." Nobody said anything about the
third-person prefix, so it need not necessarily be reversed to be "no
subject" somehow. "lu-" is mentioned separately as well. Moreover, it
just plain works for me. In the other languages I've heard, even the "it"
isn't expressed. If you asked a Sanskrit grammarian what the subject of
"It is lived by the hermits" is, the answer would be "The hermits". Then
again, Sanskrit ideas of subject and object are slightly different from
English and probably Klingon as well. 'Sides, "Qonglu'" doesn't have *no*
subject, just no object and an indefinite subject.
>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.
I can respect your point of view; I too have a list of things
legal-but-I-won't-touch-'em. But for this one, it really does work for me,
and I approve of it. The fact that we have canon for it helps, too.
>charghwI'
~mark