tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 04 12:35:03 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ngevlu'Qo'wI' (was Re: KLBC: names)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ngevlu'Qo'wI' (was Re: KLBC: names)
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:34:50 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Alan Anderson" at Nov 4, 97 06:48:47 am
I accept that this construction failed to work. I thought it
could work, but since ghunchu'wI', whose opinion I respect,
seriously objects to it, the doubts I already had about this
are greatly increased. I was never sure this would work. I
thought it could.
It doesn't.
I concede, much as I wish others would with this insane
Question As Object thing...
charghwI'
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> 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'
>
>