tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 11 15:43:59 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q about -lu'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Q about -lu'
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:05:35 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Mar 11, 96 07:38:48 am
According to Mark E. Shoulson:
...
> >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.
>
> I have no evidence or logic that "'e' Xlu'" is illegal, aside from simply
> knowing that "net X" is preferred. I don't think that's absolute evidence
> to say it's *wrong*, just less than ideal. It makes logical and
> grammatical sense; it may be wrong only because "net X" overshadows it.
>
> ~mark
There have been times when I felt like I fundamentally
understood what Okrand was getting at with parts of the
language and aspects of the grammar. It was like there was
something BEHIND the descriptions... something that several
separate properties of the grammar pointed to indirectly.
It's this kind of understanding of it which led me to push
strongly for limited use of {-ghach} when a lot of people were
pushing the other way, including my mentor, Krankor. I'm not
trying to push Okrand out of his rightful role. I'm not
inventing new words or pushing the grammar into bold, new
directions. I'm trying to get into Okrand's head and grok the
nugget from which he came up with this stuff.
{-lu'} is special. While it is not the same thing as passive
voice, I think it developed as an exercise studying the nature
of the passive voice. The way English treats the object of the
action of a verb as the subject of the passive form of that
verb has a parallel to the way Klingon uses transitive verbal
prefixes with {-lu'}.
>From this, it follows that the object of a verb with {-lu'} is
shifted toward the role of subject, since without {-lu'} a verb
may have a subject and no object, but it cannot have an object
and no subject. Only through {-lu'} can a verb take an object
with no subject, since the subject is indefinite...
The role of {'e'} is that of object and ONLY object of a verb.
It can in no way be slipped toward being the subject of one,
and applying {-lu'} to a verb following {'e'} is simply too
close to placing it in the subject role, grammatically. It is
fundamentally offensive. There had to be a way around it.
Okrand created {net}. If {'e' Xlu'} were allowable, Okrand
would have had no reason to bother creating {net}. He didn't do
it just to toss in an arbitrary additional rule. He didn't do
it like the {rIntaH} rule or the use of {-pu'} as noun suffix
in order to get around a problem in movie production. In my
memory, there have been no canonical uses of {net}.
Okrand created {net} because he had to in order to play out the
role of {-lu'} and the role of {'e'} within the grammar he was
creating. These two fragments of the language simply do not
work together and replacing {'e'} with {net} solved this
problem.
It fits with my reading of the old {-moHlu'} combination
problem. But I won't get into THAT again...
I can't point to specific rules on this one. It is a gut thing.
I really think I understand this one, and while Okrand could
easily change the rules to spite me (like he did with {-jaj} to
spite Krankor for challenging an obvious mistake on Okrand's
part), given the language as Okrand has presented it, I think I
am reading this one correctly. My track record on this sort of
thing has been pretty good. Please don't take this intuitive
leap too lightly.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |