tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 12 11:56:22 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q about -lu'
>Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:36:57 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>In a message dated 96-03-11 00:26:22 EST, you write:
"You" again? I think this was me.
>>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.
>'ay' 6.2.5: "When the verb of the second sentence has a third-person subject
>. . . but the intended meaning is *one* or *someone*, rather than *he*,
>*she*, *it*, or *they*, {net} is used instead of {'e'}."
>Since {-lu'} means third-person subject meaning *someone*, I believe that
>{'e' Xlu'} is, in fact, illegal.
True, Okrand does say that "net" is used where one would otherwise expect
'e' Xlu', and while that doesn't necessarily clinch it that 'e' Xlu' is
illegal, it's certainly a pretty strong argument against it, and likely
means it's illegal. I will accept this argument that it's wrong, because
Okrand says it and because {net} is better and all, and indeed I said that
in my earlier post (I think): that 'e' Xlu' may be illegal only due to the
existence and preferability of net. I don't agree that 'e' Xlu' is illegal
for logical reasons or for reasons of "role reversal" or anything like
that. It's overshadowed by net, yes... but were it not for "net" I would
have no problem with it (does that make any sense whatsoever?)
I suppose it doesn't matter much in the final analysis: the effect is the
same. But I think there's disagreement on how many ways there are to get
there.
~mark