tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 09 12:27:26 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q about -lu'
I've seen two good responses to this one, but neither one
addressed the KLBC-centric need to explain why the original
grammar here is illegal:
> >2. (even less likely) can it be used to express general
> >rules of behaviour as in
> >.. vaj DungDaq pumlu' 'e' vInIDbe'lu'
> >("thus one doesn't try to fall upward", really meaning
> >"thus one SHOULD not try to fall upward")
Think for a minute. You can't use {-lu'} on the second verb in
a Sentence As Object construction. It creates grammatical
headaches relating to the role reversal of subject and object,
thereby placing {'e'} in the subject role (by some
interpretations).
Regardless of the specifics of the fallout of such a
construction, Okrnad foresaw the problem and specifically
created {net} for any place you'd be tempted to use {'e' Xlu'}.
Others gave you examples of use of {net} but did not explicitly
tell you that {'e' Xlu'} is illegal. It is.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |