tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 10 21:16:31 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Q about -lu'

charghwI' writes:
>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).

Calling this a "role reversal" doesn't sit well with me.  {-lu'}
is labeled as "indefinite subject", not as "passive voice" or as
"role reversal".  I agree with your assessment of the problems
that occur if one tries to interpret {-lu'} using passive voice
when the object is {'e'}, but that might just mean that passive
isn't the right interpretation.

>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.

This is the first time I've *ever* seen {'e' Xlu'} called illegal.
It's arguably inferior to {net X}, but I don't think it's as bad
as you make it out to be.

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

Back to archive top level