tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 04 06:37:47 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: ngevlu'Qo'wI' (was Re: KLBC: names)

jIja'pu':
>mu'qoqvam vIyajQo'.  DumISmoHtaH Hergh 'e' vItulbej.

ja' charghwI':
>bIqarbe'. Daj mu'vam. Qap 'e' vIHar. yajlaw' latlh. chay'
>Dayajbe'? The {-lu'} shifts focus to the object of the action
>rather than the subject. The {-wI'} nominalizes the action of
>the verb on the object. 

1.  {-lu'} doesn't "shift focus" to the object automatically.  By
    definition, {-lu'} merely indicates an indefinite subject.  I 
    would tend to focus on the verb more than the object, unless
    {-'e'} were used to topicalize the object, or {-bogh} made the 
    whole phrase into a relative clause.

2.  {-wI'} doesn't nominalize the action of the verb; that's what 
    {-ghach} does.  {-wI'} makes the unstated third-person *subject*
    of the verb into the noun under consideration.

{-lu'} is defined as indicating an indefinite subject.  {-wI'} says 
the subject is the important thing.  If {-lu'} is there, {-wI'} has 
nothing to talk about.  The way I see it, they can't coexist.

>Okay, another angle:
>
>ngevwI' = seller
>ngevlu'wI' = that which is sold
>ngevlu'Qo'wI' = that which one refuses to sell.

I can't accept {ngevlu'wI'}.  You're trying to extend {-wI'} past its
limited role of referring to the subject of a verb.  If you need to 
use the object of a verb in a larger clause, go all the way to {-bogh}
and say {Doch ngevlu'Qo'bogh} "thing which one refuses to sell"

>bImIStaH'a'? chaq jImIS 'ej jImIS 'e' vISovbe'.

Usually when we find ourselves on opposite sides of a debate, I can 
recognize the validity of your position, and indeed I usually agree 
with it somewhat while trying to show how my interpretation is also 
valid.  In this case, however, I am firmly convinced that you're just 
plain wrong in trying to use {-wI'} to apply to the object of a verb
with {-lu'}.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level