tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 02 19:09:52 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vay' and lu'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: vay' and lu'
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 22:09:24 -0500
>> jeghlu'Qo'chugh vaj HoHqanglu'.
>I still haven't heard from Guido; and I am very interested in what he has
>to say.
['el *ghuy'Do*]
Alright, if it really seems important enough, my opinion is that it just
should kind of go both ways, even tho I like to look at it from a more
regular, consistent standpoint that a type 2 suffix indicates volition of the
agent/subject no matter what, even if it is indefinite.
And just to keep down the amount of unnecessary mail, charghwI' believes that
type 2 suffixes used with {-lu'} indicate volition of the object/patient. Of
course our viewpoints on the matter aren't quite so clean-cut, you must
understand that it really probably swings both ways, according to context, as
do so many things.
I hope I have voiced my opinion on the matter in such a way that charghwI'
need not feel compelled to respond, unless of course he really really wants
to. Hopefully I haven't misrepresented his opinion here, as I am so
ridiculously notorious for doing.
[mej *ghuy'Do*]
janSIy }}:+D>
mIw'e' 'oghta'bogh *Seqram* vIta'meH je, loQ tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI'pu'vaD
jImugh: chay' Segh cha'DIch wot mojaq luyajnISlu', tlhejDI' Segh vaghDIch wot
mojaq; 'e' vIDel, vuDmey'e' DIpolbogh jIH charghwI' je vIqeltaHvIS. 'ej
charghwI' vuD vIDelHa'be' 'e' vItul. pItlh.
ghuy'Do