tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 03 08:21:48 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC on naming convention
Marc Ruehlaender wrote:
>
> ghItlh ghunchu'wI'
> >
> > I can certainly understand "The shuttle is wrecked" to refer to
> > the process of wrecking the shuttle. It depends on whether you
> > read "is wrecked" as passive for "wrecks", or if you think that
> > "wrecked" is an adjective. The English is ambiguous, but there
> > can definitely be an equivalence between "it wrecks the shuttle"
> > and "the shuttle is wrecked" in my view.
> >
> I agree to some point. What I should have said is that I think
> {-lu'} should not be used to describe a state but only to describe
> an action. charghwI' mentioned in an other post that the stative
> was equivalent to an action in the past. I'm not sure but I don't
> think so. _Maybe_ it's about the same as a _completed_ action.
> But even then I see a subtle difference between "one has wrecked
> the shuttle" and "the shuttle is wrecked"(stative).
> (I'm NOT talking about things like "the shuttle is being wrecked"
> or "the shuttle is wrecked by blah", which are of course reasonably
> translated by -lu')
>
> HomDoq
Couldn't one write something like "the shuttle has been wrecked"
and a combination of the above, combining both the stative sense
and the action with something like -pu'lu'?:)
{QetlhIS}