tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 17 09:43:33 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: "Is this seat taken?"

     I would prefer that I simply agree with ~mark on this, but as yet, at
the gut level, I feel like he just hasn't quite looked closely enough at
this.

> Subject: "Is this seat taken?"
...[Guido writes:]
> >> 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'}...
...
> [charghwI' writes:]
> >I vote yes, initially. Then again, I see the problem...
[~mark writes:]
> 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...

     That's exactly my point. Look a little closer at the {lu-} example.
That's a third person plural subject and third person singular object that
becomes reversed to the indefinite singular third person subject and third
person plural object. It is reversed, just like first and second person
examples.

     Furthermore, in the example of the use of the verb {tu'}, where NO
prefix is used, implying singular third person subject and either singular or
plural third person object (all combinations not covered by {lu-}), Okrand
STILL reverses the subject and object by translating it as "someone/something
finds IT." That is not anywhere like saying "someone/something finds." The
implied third person singular subject becomes the third person singular
object.

     You are suggesting that while all other descriptions of the usage of
prefixes and the resulting meaning clearly show a reversal of the subject and
object, that in this one case, there is suddenly an absence of relationship
between the prefix and the resulting object, even though Okrand didn't say
so, didn't show any examples of this and doesn't show any examples of this in
any of his other works. 

     Mighty weak argument you got there.

> Moreover, it
> just plain works for me.  

     So? 

     It "works" for me, too, in that I can understand it if somebody says it,
but we have a language here defined by one book, some movies and audio tapes
and none of those sources justify this usage. Hey, I could come up with a
sentence-as-subject construction that you'd probably figure out as well as
you can figure out {Qonglu'}.

     It ain't Klingon. I say that knowing that TWO, count 'em TWO grammarians
I respect a LOT have gone on record saying it IS Klingon. I ask them to
please reconsider their opinion. It counts more than mine, and I honestly
think they are wrong, led into temptation by the ease with which this class
of statements could be made and understood, even if they do violate rules and
lack any canonical example.

charghwI'

Back to archive top level